THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


convenes the 


MEETING 42 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


VOL. II 


DAY TWO 


The verbatim transcript of the 42nd 


Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held at the Holiday Inn Select, 


Naperville, Illinois, on Dec. 12, 2006. 

 

2 

C O N T E N T S 

Dec. 12, 2006 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

DR. LEWIS WADE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL 

8 

OVERARCHING SCIENCE ISSUES UPDATE 

DR. BRANT ULSH, NIOSH/OCAS 

12 

BOARD TRACKING SYSTEMS DISCUSSION 

DR. LEWIS WADE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

42 

BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES 

DR. LEWIS WADE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

56 

HARSHAW CHEMICAL CO. SEC PETITION 

MR. STUART HINNEFELD, NIOSH/OCAS 

72 

CONGRESSIONAL COMMENTS 

SENATOR OBAMA 

119 

BLOCKSON CHEMICAL CO. SEC PETITION 

DR. BRANT ULSH, NIOSH/OCAS 

140 

ALLIED CHEMICAL CORP. SEC PETITION 

MR. STUART HINNEFELD, NIOSH/OCAS 

239 

DOL PROGRAM UPDATE 

MR. PETER TURCIC, DOL 

271 

PUBLIC COMMENT 324 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 398 
3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


In the following transcript: a dash (--) indicates 


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


sentence. An ellipsis (. . .) indicates halting speech 


or an unfinished sentence in dialogue or omission(s) of 


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


-- "uh-huh" represents an affirmative response, and 


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


-- "*" denotes a spelling based on phonetics, 


without reference available. 


-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 


failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

4

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

P A R T I C I P A N T S 


(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 


BOARD MEMBERS
 

CHAIR
 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


School of Health Sciences 


Purdue University 


Lafayette, Indiana 


EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

CLAWSON, Bradley 


Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 


Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 


GIBSON, Michael H. 


President 


Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 


Local 5-4200 


Miamisburg, Ohio 


GRIFFON, Mark A. 


President 


Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 


Salem, New Hampshire 


LOCKEY, James, M.D. 


Professor, Department of Environmental Health 


College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati 

 

5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

MELIUS, James Malcom, M.D., Ph.D. 


Director 


New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund 


Albany, New York 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 


PRESLEY, Robert W. 


Special Projects Engineer 


BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 


Clinton, Tennessee 


ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


University of Florida 


Elysian, Minnesota 


STAFF
 

LASHAWN SHIELDS, Committee Management Specialist, NIOSH 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, Certified Merit Court Reporter 

6 

SIGNED-IN AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS
 

BAKER, ELAINE, MASO 


BARTELS, PHYLLIS 


BEAL, JUDITH 


BELL, WILLIAM RAY 


BREYER, LAURIE, NIOSH 


BROEHM, JASON, CDC WASHINGTON OFFICE 


BURGAN, LARRY 


BURKHART, HARRY 


CASE, DIANE L., DOL 


CHANG, C, NIOSH 


CHARLEY, MARY BETH 


COTTRELL, CHERYL 


DUNGAN ANITA, CLAIMANT 


DVORAK, CHUCK 


ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 


ENGLE, MEETA, GAO 


EVANS, LINDA 


FITZGERALD, JOSEPH, SC&A 


GATES, MARY LOU 


GORDON, CLAUDE & PAULINE 


GREER, DON, USW 7-669 


GRSHOVIK, KEN & LYNN 


HESS, JAMES, EX-OLIN EMPLOYEE 


HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 


HOOD, RACHELL SMITH 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


IVORY, SAMUEL 


KALLAL, THOMAS, EX-OLIN EMPLOYEE 


KEENAN, PATTY 


KELA, PHYLLIS, BLOCKSON 


KLINGHAMMER, BILLY, USW 7-669 


KOSTAL, GEORGE R., NIOSH 


LAPINE, MICHAEL 


LEWIS, MARK, ATL 


MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 


MALONE, ROSEMARY 


MARCOSKI, BEV, OLIN BLOCKSON 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


MCFEE, MATTHEW, ORAUT 


MCKEEL, DAN, WU-VI NEWS 

7 

MCKEEL, LOUISE, VILLAGE IMAGE NEWS 


MILLER, RICHARD, GAP 


MITOK, JUDY 


NAGY, YOLANDA, FOX NEWS 


NEEDHAM, DONNA 


NOAK, JOHN, U.S. REP. BIGGERT 


OFFERMANN, CLAIRE 


OZBOLT, ARNIE 


OZBOLT, JAY 


OZBOLT, JOHN 


PERVIS, RICK & LINDA 


PIRC, LOIS 


POLLO, JOSEPH, GSI/MOC 


PRESLEY, LOUISE S., WIFE OF ROBERT PRESLEY 


RAFKY, MICHAEL, HHS 


RAMSPOTT, JOHN 


REISS, KAREN 


RUTHERFORD, LAVON, NIOSH 


SILVERMAN, ABBY, FOX NEWS 


SMITH, BETTY J. 


STEPHAN, ROBERT, SEN. OBAMA 


TOMES, TOM, NIOSH 


TURCIC, PETE, DOL 


ULSH, BRANT, NIOSH 


WARREN, ELENA 


WIRTH, JOHN A. 


WIRTH, MARY RUTH 


ZACCHERS, MARY JO, ORAU 


ZIEMER, MARILYN 


ZLOTNICKI, JOE, SC&A 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

P R O C E E D I N G S
 

(8:30 a.m.) 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR
 

DR. ZIEMER: Good morning, everyone. I'd like to 


call the session to order. We begin our second 


day of deliberations for the 42nd meeting of 


the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 


Health, remind you again to please register 


your attendance with us in the attendance 


folder that's in the outer foyer. 


Before we go to -- directly to our agenda, we 


have a couple of kind of housekeeping things to 


take care of and we'll begin -- some of these 


are sort of legal issues. We're going to begin 


with Emily Howell from our legal counsel and 


Emily will give us some information pertaining 


to conflict of interest disclosure statements 


and related matters. Emily. 


 MS. HOWELL: Yes. I just wanted to let you all 


know what I just passed out at your seats is a 


-- is a two-pronged thing. It's a consent to 


post a conflict of interest disclosure 


statement on the Board's web site, as well as 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

the actual contents of what will be in that 


disclosure statement. The old Board members 


may remember that you signed one of these about 


-- a little over a year ago. They've been on 


the Board's web page. Unfortunately, the newer 


members of the Board have not had theirs 


included and when I went through I just went 


ahead and updated everyone. So hopefully 


everything that you have in front of you 


reflects the actual status of your waiver at 


this time. And if you have any questions about 


anything, including even your title or 


biographical information that would be in the 


disclosure statement, please feel free to make 


a note of it on that copy to speak to me about 


it and hopefully we can get that resolved 


during this meeting so that those can go ahead 


and be reposted to the web site. But just feel 


free to grab me during a break or something if 


you need to discuss -- and I do need you to 


sign the consent page on the front and also, 


once we have a version of the disclosure 


statement that you're comfortable with, to 


initial that as well. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So even if they signed one 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10 

before, a year ago, we need to -- 


 MS. HOWELL: Yes, we're going to -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- have a new signature. 


 MS. HOWELL: -- go ahead and -- go ahead and do 


this on an annual basis. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And update all the 


biographical materials or make corrections if 


necessary. 


 MS. HOWELL: Yes, please. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Any 


questions for Emily on this issue? 


 (No responses) 


Okay. Larry, I believe you have an 


announcement or an item, also. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I just wanted to make sure that 


the Board and the audience were aware that we 


have public health advisors -- Ms. Sharon 


Jenkins and Tanya Carson are next door to us in 


this room behind us here -- and they are 


providing updates to claimants who have signed 


up for an appointment to learn more about dose 


reconstruction, learn more about their 


particular claim and where it stands in the 


process. So that's -- this is going to be 


come custom for us to do this at Board 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11 

meetings. We sent out about 700 some-odd 


letters to the active claimants in the -- in 


this geographical area, noticing them that this 


meeting was occurring and if they wanted an 


appointment they simply had to call back and 


schedule one and come in and we would provide 


them information. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And Larry, if there are claimants 


here who did not make an appointment but do 


have questions, what should they do then? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: They -- they -- I think we have 


some open time slots that we can take walk-ins, 


and they should see me or see one of the public 


health advisors, Sharon Jenkins or Tanya 


Carson, and sign up. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Thank you. And Lew, 


do you have some opening remarks at this point? 


 DR. WADE: Well, two very brief ones. As 


always I thank the Board for its efforts. I 


would also like to particularly commend the 


Board for its due diligence as we move forward 


in this area of SEC petitions and designations. 


I think this is becoming a very important part 


of what the Board does and I admire the Board's 


willingness to -- to study this issue and make 

12 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

improvements as it goes forward. I think it 


serves everyone surrounding the program that 


the Board does this precisely and correctly, 


and I admire the Board's willingness to -- to 


undertake that process. Thank you. 


OVERARCHING SCIENCE ISSUES UPDATE
 

DR. BRANT ULSH, NIOSH/OCAS


 DR. ZIEMER: Over the past several years the 


Board has been cognizant of a number of issues 


that relate, for example, to the determinations 


of probability of causation insofar as there 


are risk estimates made using certain standard 


procedures, risk estimates, for example, that 


come to us from the National Cancer Institute. 


There are also related scientific issues that 


deal with some of the modeling that's used for 


dose reconstruction. And to give us an update 


on those -- some of those scientific issues and 


to get us thinking about how we track -- 


particularly ones that may be subject to change 


or are undergoing change as new science becomes 


available -- we're going to hear from Brant 


Ulsh today and he will give us what we call an 


update on overarching science issues. 


 DR. WADE: While Brant is getting ready, could 


I ask if Dr. Poston is on the line? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13

 (No response) 


 Is Dr. Poston on the line? 


 (No response) 


Okay. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Do we have a mike for the podium, 


or is there a lavaliere mike that could be 


used? Here comes --


 DR. MELIUS: Someone ran off with it last 


night. 


 MS. MUNN: Last time I saw it, it was on 


somebody's jacket. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I know. They were looking 


for it after the meeting last night, though. 


(Pause) 


 DR. ULSH: Can everybody hear me okay? Speak 


up? Okay. I'm fighting a cold anyway so I 


didn't want to go without technical assistance. 


So as Dr. Ziemer mentioned, I'm here to talk to 


you about overarching science issues, and 


perhaps the best place to start is to tell you 


what we mean when we talk about overarching 


science issues. 


These are issues that have come up in a site-


specific context, or maybe in the context of a 


small number of dose reconstructions, and they 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

have broader implications beyond just the 


context where they come up -- sometimes across 


the entire complex, sometimes just to parts of 


the complex. But these are the kinds of issues 


that I'm talking about this morning. 


And at the Las Vegas Board meeting, the last 


Board meeting that we had, the Board expressed 


a desire that we capture these kinds of issues 


so that none of them fall through the cracks. 


And so what we have done in the interim between 


the Las Vegas meeting and today is just to 


begin to establish a list of these overarching 


issues. 


And this morning I'm not going to present the 


NIOSH position on these issues. Rather, we're 


just at the beginning stages where we capture 


these issues in one place, and NIOSH will be 


developing our positions on these issues and 


presenting them to the Board for their 


consideration. We anticipate that on most, if 


not all, of these issues we will issue a 


position paper, a White Paper, for the Board's 


consideration. And also this morning we would 


like to solicit input from the Advisory Board 


to get your thoughts on -- well, anything 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15 

related to overarching issues, but in 


particular the issues that you think are 


perhaps more important than -- than others, or 


even issues not currently on the list that you 


would like to see added. 


So with that introduction, let me see -- ah, 


all right. Here is the list of issues that I'm 


going to be talking about today. I won't read 


through them because I'm going to cover them 


each individually. 


And the first of those issues is hot particles. 


And what we're talking about here is particles 


of radioactive material that are very active in 


terms of the amount of radioactivity they emit, 


and the prob-- or the issue here is handling 


these hot particles in terms of when they 


deposit on the skin or when they're inhaled or 


ingested. Typically when we do internal 


dosimetry calculations we calculate dose to an 


entire organ. And the issue with these hot 


particles is that the way that they deposit 


dose in a particular organ can be very uneven. 


In other words, parts of the organ in the 


immediate vicinity of the hot particle get much 


higher dose, but the organ as a whole doesn't 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

get a high dose. And the same kind of an 


argument occurs when hot particles deposit on 


the skin and you're talking about external 


irradiation. 


So this is a topic that we recognize has some 


fairly important implications. It's not a 


topic that's new to the health physics 


community. There's a lot of information on 


this in the health physics literature, and the 


NIOSH evaluation is going to look at that 


literature and come up with a position for how 


we handle this in terms of a dose 


reconstruction. 


 The next topic is the assumptions that we make 


for unmonitored workers. I think there's 


probably a lot of confusion out there about 


what NIOSH does in situations like this, and a 


lot of that is because our position has evolved 


over time throughout our discussions with 


various working groups of the Board and with 


SC&A in terms of particular SEC petition 


evaluations and TBD evaluations. There's been 


a lot of technical interchange between the 


groups that I've just mentioned, and our 


position has evolved over time. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17 

So we felt that it would be appropriate to come 


to the Board with a coherent statement of our 


position, when we might apply environmental 


dose versus some percentile of measured 


coworker doses, and just to let you know the 


basis for NIOSH's position on this. So that is 


one topic that I think is probably of great 


interest, and we will be speaking to you about 


that as we develop our position. 


The next topic is manipulation of dosimetry 


badges. And what I mean when I say this is 


we've heard accounts from workers from a 


variety of sites now -- Rocky Flats, NTS -- 


that for various reasons they didn't wear their 


badges when they went into radiation areas. 


And we would -- we're going to focus -- our 


evaluation of this issue is going to focus only 


on the technical aspects of this issue in terms 


of how we recognize when this might have 


occurred and how will we account for it in dose 


reconstructions. As I mentioned, I have talked 


about this issue in a -- in a site-specific 


context when I presented the Rocky Flats 


evaluation report presentation in April in 


Denver. But we need to take a step back and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

talk about this in a more generic format, how 


it might apply across other sites in the 


complex as well because we have heard those 


accounts from workers at a number of site. 


Okay, this is one that I talked about in Las 


Ve-- well, two that I talked about in Las 


Vegas, oro-nasal breathing and ingestion. We 


are currently -- we have contracts with EG&G to 


develop some research on these issues. I gave 


you that schedule in Las Vegas. We are on 


schedule -- as far as I know, anyway. We 


anticipate having a report from EG&G on these 


two issues by the end of the year, so this 


might be one that we could present to the Board 


fairly soon, I would think. This was a -- 


these two topics came up in terms of the 


Bethlehem Steel TBD evaluation. And although 


we came to a temporary -- I don't -- I don't 


want to say temporary, but a limited agreement 


on how to deal with that issue in those 


contexts, again, we need to take a step back 


and talk about this in a more generic format. 


The next topic is cohort badging. And what 


we're talking about here in terms of cohort 


badging is the idea that when a group of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19 

workers are doing the same kind of a job, maybe 


only one worker, or maybe a subset of those 


workers, is monitored for radiation exposure 


and that dose is applied to the group as a 


whole. I think there's been a lot of 


perceptions developed about this practice, and 


I think it's appropriate for NIOSH to come up 


with our position and present it to you. We 


need to talk about where and when it might have 


occurred. And we also need to talk about, in 


those situations where it did occur, what 


effect that might have in terms of how we apply 


coworker data. So I know this is a topic of 


pretty great interest, so we're going to be 


developing a White Paper on this issue as well. 


Okay. The next topic is tracking materials 


throughout the complex. And if anyone has a 


shorter, snappier way to say this, I would 


appreciate it because this is kind of 


cumbersome. But this is an issue that was 


raised by Mr. Clawson on the Advisory Board 


during a working group meeting, and the poster 


child example of this is radioactive lanthanum 


that was used at the Los Alamos site and it was 


the basis for a recent SEC recommendation. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20 

Well, Mr. Clawson discovered that the 


radioactive lanthanum that was used at Los 


Alamos was actually produced at Idaho. And so 


the obvious question is, if radioactive 


lanthanum was the basis of an SEC petition at 


Los Alamos and it was produced in Idaho, what 


effect -- what implications might that have for 


the Idaho site. And this is just one 


particular example. 


I think this is an important issue, not just 


for radioactive lanthanum but for other issues 


as well. It's important that when we make a 


recommendation to establish an SEC class, we 


consider what implications that might have at 


other sites. As most of you know, the 


Department of Energy atomic -- nuclear weapons 


complex did not consist of isl-- sites that 


were islands that didn't have any connection to 


other sites. There were a lot of connections 


between sites. Materials were produced at one 


site, perhaps processed at another site and 


used at a third site. So I think it's 


important for us to consider the implications 


not only at the particular sites where we 


recognize an issue, but we ask ourselves where 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21 

else this might have implications for, so 


that's what this issue is. 


And the next topic is consideration of 


incidents. Now when I'm talking about 


incidents -- I guess part of our analysis is 


going to be coming up with a definition of what 


we mean when we say incidents. But for me, at 


least right now, what this means is -- it could 


be anything from an individual worker has a 


small spill of radioactive material, that's one 


end of the spectrum. The other end of the 


spectrum might be criticality accidents that 


occurred in Oak Ridge or major fires that 


destroyed entire buildings at -- at Rocky 


Flats, for instance. So what we want to do --


oh, this topic came up in the context of the 


Hanford working group meeting about a week, 


week and a half ago. And during that 


conversation it was recognized or discussed 


that this is particularly important in dose 


reconstructions that are best estimates. 


And for -- just for the public who may not 


understand what I mean when I say this, these 


are dose reconstructions that are not 


overestimates, that are not underestimates, but 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

the probability of causation is fairly close to 


50 percent. And so when we have dose 


reconstructions like that, we really sharpen 


the pencil and try to come up with a precise 


estimate of dose reconstruction -- of the dose, 


and we refer to these as best-estimate cases. 


And these are the cases where particular 


incidents could have an impact on the 


compensability of the claim, so it's 


particularly important in -- in those kinds of 


situations. And we want to ensure that when 


we're developing Technical Basis Documents, 


site profiles, or considering SEC petitions, 


that we capture the resources that are 


available to summarize these incidents. The 


example that was discussed in the Hanford 


working group meeting was the database that 


exists capturing incidents at the Savannah 


River Site. And so this should really just be 


a routine matter of course for us that we look 


for those kinds of resources whenever we begin 


developing a site profile. So this is one of 


the issues that we've added to the overarching 


issues list. 


Okay. Finally, and briefly, I just wanted to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23 

give you a status of where we are with CLL. 


That's Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. This is a 


topic of interest. It's been going on for some 


time now. We asked our con-- our technical 


contractor, SENES, to develop a prototype risk 


model -- I guess maybe I should back up and 


give you a little more background on CLL. 


CLL is the one type of cancer that is 


specifically excluded from coverage under Part 


B of EEOICPA. In other words, it's not a 


qualifying cancer. We don't do dose 


reconstructions for people with CLL. 


 Well, some questions came up about that 


exclusion. NIOSH has looked at the scientific 


literature on this issue, and then we asked 


SENES to develop this risk model and they have 


developed this prototype risk model and 


delivered it to us. The next step is going to 


be that we will solicit outside expert opinion 


on this risk model. Once that process is 


complete, we will package the risk model, along 


with our recommendation to the -- we'll put 


that together in a decision package that will 


be sent to the Secretary of Health and Human 


Services for his decision on that issue. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24 

And I believe that takes me to the end -- yes, 


so I'd be happy to entertain any questions or 


comments. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very good, Brant. Let me begin 


the questions by noting that in the case of 


oro-nasal breathing and also in the case of 


CLL, you have contracted that work out to 


specific groups. Is it your plan that most or 


all of these would be contracted out to sort of 


expert groups as a first step in gathering and 


interpreting the information before your staff 


works on it, or --


 DR. ULSH: Well --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- will it be a mixed approach? 


 DR. ULSH: Let me take a crack at that and I'll 


-- I'll look at Larry to make sure that I'm 


saying the right thing. I think that decision 


is going to be impacted by a lot of factors -- 


resource loading within NIOSH, what expertise 


that we have in-house. Certainly we will look 


for opportunities for discrete topics that can 


be contracted to these expert groups like SENES 


or to EG&G where it's a discrete bite of a 


topic and they can develop a very discrete 


product and hand it to us for review. But even 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25 

those that we do put out for contract, once 


they're delivered to NIOSH it undergoes 


internal NIOSH review and so -- I mean it's not 


just that we take whatever a contractor -- 


subcontractors say, you know, at face value. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let me follow that up with one 


other question then. In a case like CLL where 


you have SENES working on the report, let us 


assume that they make a recommendation that 


some risk factor be applied to CLL and that it 


be considered. Would -- would you anticipate 


that before that was recommended for NIOSH to 


adopt, that you would have National Cancer 


Institute look at that and sort of get their 


buy-in? Because it seems to me in that kind of 


a case that if it was at odds with what an 


agency like NCI was recommending, we would have 


a -- a problem. I think I would have a 


problem. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Certainly as we, in the early 


days of the program, started looking for 


precedent risk models, we talked with NCI, we ­

- the law directed us to actually use the early 


radioepi tables. And in this situation with 


CLL we certainly would avail ourselves of their 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

expertise. I imagine that would happen at the 


point where it goes to the Secretary and the 


Secretary makes sure that the other agency 


within the Department has an opportunity to 


comment. But we have -- we have collegial 


contacts that Brant and Jim Neton and Russ 


Henshaw and others on the OCAS staff make with 


the National Cancer Institute folks, so -- I 


would add that, you know, this will require 


rule-making because it would change our rule, 


so the Secretary's package would be essentially 


a decision to proceed with rule-making -- a 


change to the rule. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. And in any case the other 


agency would then have an opportunity to 


comment, so --


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, at that point. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Well, there's a number of 


flags up. Let's go around the table; I didn't 


see who went up first, but Dr. Roessler, why 


don't you start. 


DR. ROESSLER: On the CLL decision, I don't see 


in the process that the Board will be brought 


in for advice or a vote or any -- anything 


else. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, if you recall, as -- as 


part of our rule-making procedures, the Board 


is included in that. So once we have developed 


a risk model that NIOSH is comfortable with and 


the Secretary has signed off on, we would 


present this to the Board as part of the 


gathering of public comment. You'd be 


incorporated in that process. 


DR. ROESSLER: I think that should be on the 


slide next time. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Michael? 


 MR. GIBSON: Brant, I believe you mentioned 


that EG&G's been contracted to do the study on 


the oral nasal breathing? 


 DR. ULSH: Yes. 


 MR. GIBSON: They've been a government-operated 


contractor for several DOE sites. Are any of 


the same people that perhaps worked in the 


health physics departments at those sites doing 


this study? And if not (sic), isn't that a 


conflict? 


 DR. ULSH: Larry, do you want to... 


 MR. ELLIOTT: You're certainly correct that 


EG&G has been a principal contractor, MEO 


contractor, at many of the sites. The people 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28 

that we have engaged through the EG&G contract 


are following the conflict of interest policy 


that NIOSH has -- is currently implementing. 


Their disclosures will be posted on the EG&G 


web site, a link from our web site to theirs. 


It's -- to my knowledge, the individuals that 


have been brought to bear on this particular 


task are not conflicted, they have not served 


in any other site. These are -- these are 


research scientists that have been engaged in 


the contract that we have with them, so... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 MR. GIBSON: So --

 DR. ZIEMER: You have a --

 MR. GIBSON: -- doesn't that kind of --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- follow-up on that? 

 MR. GIBSON: I mean it's -- kind of sounds like 

the same thing with ORAU, that -- you know, I 


hear a lot of them say there's no personal 


conflict, and yet there could be corporate 


conflict. Can you explain the difference 


there? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I would say that EG&G 


perhaps has a corporate conflict at -- at sites 


where they have had, you know, a responsibility 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

to manage a given DOE facility. As I said, 


these individuals that -- that have been 


brought to bear on this particular task did not 


serve at -- my understanding, they did not 


serve in any capacity -- professional capacity 


at one of those sites that puts them 


individually as -- in a conflict. So the 


corporate conflict comes to bear where they're 


working on something that's relative to a given 


site document. And in this case, this is an 


overarching or general issue, so I think we're 


going to have to look at that closely and sort 


that out. Again, these are products that are 


being developed by these contractors, but at 


the end of the day they will be a NIOSH 


product, they'll be a NIOSH document, so we'll 


-- we'll put our seal of approval on them and 


they will be essentially developed by 


ourselves. These are the starting points that 


we're asking EG&G to deliver to us. 


 DR. ULSH: And Mike, I understand your 


question. If you look at the alternative, 


though, and that's to have NIOSH do all of 


these in-house -- for instance, I might do oronasal breathing or ingestion -- I have a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 

conflict at the Fernald site, so I'm not a 


completely conflict-free individual. But what 


that means in terms of how we do our business 


is that I don't do anything related to the 


Fernald site. In terms of these overarching 


issues, I could do that. I could work on those 


types of issues. So the same -- I think the 


same kind of standards are going to be applied 


for the contractor that we hired to do this. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Dr. Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I -- just to follow up. I 


mean I think -- I think this needs scrutiny. 


mean we've talked about this and the issue of 


where we had particular issues that affect 


multiple sites and just -- but mainly focus on 


a few and there's certainly the potential for a 


conflict of interest there and I -- I would 


just urge that you look at it very -- very 


closely. I'm not saying particularly on this 


issue, but in these issues in general that 


there certainly is the potential for the 


appearance of conflict of interest and I would 


hope you pay very careful attention to it. 


On CLL, just to -- in terms of follow-up, I'm a 


little confused. We've discussed this before. 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31 

We've discussed other scientific issues and 


I'll get to that in a second, but this -- my 


recollection is that the process on these 


issues -- the original process was that NIOSH 


would work on these issues and then come to the 


Board for advice. And suddenly we now have the 


Secretary in between and we're -- we're -- 


we're -- we're suddenly relegated to another 


group that provides public comment, and I don't 


quite understand why that's the -- the case in 


this particular instance and why this change 


has taken -- taken place. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I believe that's probably only 


true for the CLL case where there's a -- some 


specific things in the regulation that excludes 


CLL so it has to go through the rule-making. 


In any event, I don't think that's true of 


anything else here that I see. Is that 


correct? 


 DR. MELIUS: Well, the -- depends on the nature 


of the changes that would take place on these 


other issues, also. If you recall, there's a 


provision that some issues need to be vetted 


publicly before they're -- and through the 


Board before they're -- though not -- they're 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

not necessarily rule-making issues. So I guess 


I'm trying to understand is this somehow now 


presumed that there will be a rule-making 


change here? I mean it -- to me, one of the 


outcomes of their report and so forth could be 


that no change needs to take place, so I'm just 


puzzled by the change in procedure. And I have 


some other questions after that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, and maybe to address it in a 


slightly different way, take another one of 


these such as assumptions for unmonitored 


workers, what would be the path that would be 


followed as you develop a position and so on? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: In that example, assumptions for 


unmonitored workers, the White Paper, we'd 


present it to the Board, you know, in one of 


your meetings and we'll seek your input and 


your advice, your recommendations about that. 


 Conversely, though, where we're talking about a 


-- a risk model that would be used for CLL, 


that goes to a rule change. Our -- our current 


rule excludes Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. 


And I'd look to General Counsel to help out on 


this, but my understanding is because it's a 


rule-making effort, if we come forward with a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33 

risk model on CLL, the Secretary -- the Office 


of Secretary has to be satisfied that it's a -- 


good science, it's appropriate for us to do 


this and to modify the rule to include CLL. At 


that point then we would come before the Board 


and present the risk model and -- and it would 


be that -- that would be the opening public 


venue for discussing this. To do so beforehand 


is -- it's my understanding it's ex parte 


communications and we can't bring it to the 


Board before the Secretary's Office has signed 


off on it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Did you have a follow-up on that? 


 DR. MELIUS: I have lots of follow-up questions 


-- several, anyway. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Go ahead. 


 DR. MELIUS: The -- I believe that we at one 


point -- I'm a little puzzled by calling these 


overarching science issues. I -- if you 


remember back many years ago we had a list of ­

- I don't remember what we called them, but 


they were scientif-- I think they were just 


plain scientific issues, and a number of those 


we haven't heard about for quite some time. 


believe CLL was actually one of those -- 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

34

 UNIDENTIFIED: CLL was one of those. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- one of those original issues, 


but there are other issues related to smoking, 


adjustments for smoking, potential for 


adjustments for age at first exposure and -- 


and so forth, and those seem to have gone by -- 


by the wayside. And I guess I'm particularly 


disturbed that we're now calling these 


overarching scientific issues and seem to have 


forgotten about those others, and particularly 


as NIOSH is a scientific agency, one would have 


hoped we -- to have seen some progress, 


particularly in things like age at first 


exposure where there's a significant amount of 


recent scientific information that would be 


helpful for dealing with that. And I guess I'm 


-- my question to Larry or Brant is what's 


happened to those -- those other issues? 


 DR. ULSH: When I put this list together, Dr. 


Melius, I was primarily trying to capture -- 


and perhaps the name of -- that I put on this 


presentation was a bit misleading. I was 


primarily trying to capture issues that have 


come up in a limited context -- for instance, a 


dose reconstruction or at a particular site -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35 

that have implications beyond the particular 


context in which it came up. 


You know, certainly we have not forgotten about 


those other scientific issues, and really I 


would put CLL in the category of those other 


scientific issues. The ones that you 


mentioned, the age at exposure, that is 


certainly still of interest to us. The smoking 


adjustment, we presented on that before. So 


those other issues -- I understand your 


concern. Those other issues have definitely 


not gone away. I just -- we just put those in 


a separate category of science issues, not 


things that were raised in a particular context 


that have more broad implications. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Larry. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: This is -- you know, this is a 


good discussion to have because we don't -- we 


don't know if we've got the list right, so 


that's why we're bringing this list to you. 


 Smoking adjustment I think we have attended to. 


We've addressed that. We presented it a couple 


or three times to the Board. We've taken a 


position on it and we have -- we have put in a 


Program Evaluation Review on smoking 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36 

adjustment. So you know, I -- maybe that's not 


off the list in some people's minds and we need 


to hear that if that's the case, if we need to 


satisfy you that we've attended to that 


satisfactorily. 


But certainly age at -- age adjustment is 


something that should be on the list. We 


haven't done anything with that. We need to --


we need to have a position paper on that. If 


there are others, we need to hear about those 


as well, so not to slight the previous work on 


the science issues, not to say that that's off 


the table, these seem to have been, you know, 


more of concern and we wanted to make sure that 


we had this list right. We certainly can add 


to it. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I -- my -- my concern would 


just be as time goes by we sort of lose those 


other issues and -- I mean one doesn't want 


this -- the science to become -- at least the 


program is run, to sort of stagnate in terms of 


its scientific basis. Yeah, I -- I think the 


title for this list is -- is misleading. 
I 


think most of these are really -- I mean 


they're -- there are scientific aspects to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37 

them, but they're sort of tech-- technical and 


procedural issues related to -- to dose 


reconstruction and I'm not sure how much 


science can go -- go into some -- some of these 


'cause a lot of them are questions of what do 


you do when you don't have information and how 


do you appropriately adjust and -- and so forth 


for that. So --


 DR. ZIEMER: Actually it appears to be kind of 


a mix of science and -- and technical issues. 


I have another question -- or if Wanda has one, 


go ahead. 


 DR. MELIUS: I have just one brief comment is 


that's re-- regarding the incidents, a little ­

- little revision to history here. I think 


we've been talking about incidents long before 


we had the Hanford workgroup a couple of weeks 


ago. That's probably the most recent 


discussion, but I -- I think it's -- it's 


something we've struggled with in terms of how 


to track those and, you know, identify those at 


-- at particular sites. I just would remind 


you we do also have a --


 DR. ZIEMER: (Unintelligible) at Nevada Test 


Site --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- context and some others as 

well. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, and we have a workgroup, and 

I believe you were at least on the phone or at 


the meeting, Brant, I can't remember, when we 


met with the workgroup on -- 


 DR. ULSH: Yes, I was. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- dealing with the less than 250­

day, which is really -- focuses on the incident 


issue, so I would be -- I think we need to be 


careful we don't get sort of too many groups 


looking at incidents and so lose track of -- of 


what's going on. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: Just a couple of comments with 


respect to incidents. It is surprising how 


differently that word is interpreted from one 


site to another, and it would be helpful I 


think for all of us to try to distinguish some 


sort of baseline about what does and does not 


constitute an incident. So far as I know, that 


has not been done. If it has been done, I'm 


not aware of it. If we wanted to undertake 


that, it might be helpful both for this Board 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39 

and NIOSH for us to very clearly define the 


parameters of what does constitute an incident 


because it does obviously vary very clearly 


from one group to another and from one site to 


another. 


The other thing is, with respect to the word 


"overarching," I think that came out of 


discussion in several of the working groups 


where the term was utilized to identify issues 


that affect more than one site and -- they 


can't be resolved simply by saying "at this 


site this is the way we're going to look at," 


for example, oro-nasal breathing. It is 


something which overarches all of the work that 


we do and would apply at multiple sites. So 


the working group probably has to take 


responsibility -- some of the working groups 


have to take responsibility if the terminology 


is at fault there. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, good point. The word 


"incident" I think not only is different from 


site to site, but it has changed in time in the 


DOE complex in terms of the threshold of what 


constitutes a, quote, incident -- such as a 


contamination incident or whatever incident 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

40 

you're talking about, a spill and so on, and so 


incident is one of those words that means many 


things to many people and we would have to 


define what we mean by it when we address it, 


but --


 DR. MELIUS: Okay, can I respond to -- to both 


those points? One is I was not arguing that 


NIOSH should not be doing a White Paper on 


incidents or whatever, I -- my argument was 


just -- concern was just that they be 


coordinated and that we have some immediate 


needs in dealing with the 250-day issue that I 


don't think we want to wait however long it'll 


take to do a White Paper, but we coordinate on 


how we're approaching that and -- so we don't 


have several left-hand/right-hand situation 


with that. And my concern about overarching 


science issue -- science issues was not the 


overarching part of it but the science part of 


it. I think it's a little more focused than 


that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thanks for clarifying. Brad? 


 MR. CLAWSON: I also want to talk about this 


incidents or oops or whatever they want to call 


it. Part of my problem was in the technical 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41 

database they addressed some of these but they 


did not address the effects that it had. And I 


have to take my personal experiences with a lot 


of this. At the sites they call out -- in my 


site -- that there was no release to the 


outside public, but it didn't take -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: And therefore it was not an 


incident. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Therefore it was not an incident, 


but it took over a year and a half to decon the 


facility down to where a person could go in 


there, plus which increased radiation internal 


dose, people with a lot of skin contaminations 


and so forth and this is -- this is what I was 


trying to address. It seems like to me that 


the technical database addresses it but does 


not address it in the detail and when we write 


these we need to make sure that a lot of these 


things are taking in consideration. That was 


my issue. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Brant, I wonder if you 


know or if maybe other Board members, like Gen 


Roessler, would know whether the ICRP is 


looking at the oro-nasal issue at all in terms 


of up-- updating the lung model? 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

42 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

DR. ROESSLER: I think they are. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Because if they are doing that, it 


would be of value to the EG&G group to exchange 


or at least touch base with those folks -- I 


forget which committee it is, but that lung 


model is sort of up-- undergoing updating. And 


we don't want to end up in a different place 


than ICRP on that issue, I would guess. So --


and maybe you've already touched base, but if 


not, we need to make sure that that occurs. 


 DR. ULSH: Thank you. We'll make sure that we 


do. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Jim or Brad, you have a comment to 

make? 

 DR. MELIUS: I'm sorry, I'm done for now. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Wade? 

BOARD TRACKING SYSTEMS DISCUSSION
 

DR. LEWIS WADE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

 DR. WADE: Just to stimulate the discussion a 


bit further, the next item on the agenda this 


morning was to talk about how the Board wishes 


to track these issues, and I think Dr. Melius 


has framed the issue excellently. There are 


two separate streams here. There are the 


science issues that have been on the agenda off 


and on that NIOSH is tracking and reporting to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

43 

the Board that -- CLL, smoking, age at first 


exposure, there's that stream. 


And now we have a new stream developing and 


that is where workgroups see an issue that they 


feel is bigger than their particular site and 


they say that that issue needs to be addressed 


at some point. They basically take it off 


their agenda and put it somewhere. That forms 


another list, and that's the bulk of what Brant 


has listed here. 


The question I have for the Board is how do you 


want to, one, track those issues; and secondly, 


how do you want to ensure that energy is 


provided to them? In the discussion of the 


science issues that Dr. Melius led, it's clear 


that we need more energy applied to those 


issues to keep them current, keep the work 


going. I also worry about the overarching 


issues falling through the cracks. The 


workgroup doesn't have them. The only place 


they're discussed is when the Board gets 


together. That's usually in a hurried mode, 


without a lot of -- of time devoted to it. So 


I think we have these two issues. Whether the 


solution is common or not, I leave that to you. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 -- 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44 

But we have the science issues that NIOSH is 


working; we need more energy and focus I think 


there. Then we have these overarching issues 


that are coming from the workgroup that at this 


point sort of sit in limbo, and they need to be 


tracked, owned and worked by somebody, and 


that's the issue I would like to bring to you 


for discussion and resolution. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, and you've kind of 


transitioned us into the Board tracking system 


 DR. WADE: Right, we can wait for --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- thus avoiding the break which 


is -- no, it's too soon for a break anyway, but 


let me start -- I'll start a response to that 


so we have something to shoot at. 


Number one, perhaps we could think about two 


tracks. One is the -- the two science issues, 


and I think you've got several in here that are 


in that category. CLL is one. I would guess 


hot particles would come into that category, 


and probably oro-nasal breathing. And I think 


all three of those may have been on the 


previous, quote, science list. I'm not -- I 


know CLL was and I'm pretty sure we've talked 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45 

about hot particles before in some context. 


But in any event, the ones here that are 


something else, like manipulation of badges or 


tracking materials through the complex, number 


one, is maybe a separate list. I'm not sure 


what we'd call it at this time. Somebody can 


take up a clever name, but don't call it nonscientific issues, but something other than 


that. And then I think NIOSH has just told us 


that they have begun work or are beginning to 


determine how to address each of these, so what 


-- as a starter, we need a regular update on 


progress on that. 


The Board will need to determine at some point 


whether it wishes to have any workgroups 


involved. Now on one of these issues at least, 


and that's sort of the incident issue -- 


quote/unquote -- is at least in part being 


looked at by the -- the SEC 250-day -- I forget 


the proper name of that workgroup, but -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Whatever it is, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- it's Dr. Melius's workgroup, so 


he was rightfully protecting his turf with his 


questioning, but -- so that -- that's one that 


sort of has a workgroup also involved in that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46 

on an ongoing basis. And there may be others 


that you would say, you know, we sort of want 


to be more actively involved as we proceed 


forward, and others you may say well, let's see 


what NIOSH comes up with and -- and then go 


from there. So I'm not necessarily suggesting 


these, but trying to stimulate your thinking so 


that you can see what you'd like to do. 


Wanda, and then Jim. 


 MS. MUNN: Because of --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I hate to interrupt, but 


there are some people on the phone that I don't 


think have it on mute and we can hear a 


conversation but we can't hear you. If you 


could ask people to put their phones on mute, 


that would be great. 


 DR. WADE: Could you speak -- could you speak a 


little bit clearer, Liz, so we can hear you? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I'm sorry, I was just saying 


we can't hear what you all are talking about 


'cause there are a number of people that don't 


have their phones on mute, so we can hear other 


conversations but not Dr. Ziemer. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Thanks. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47

 DR. WADE: So two -- two rules now. I would 


ask everyone on the line to mute their phone. 


If you're not speaking, then mute your phone 


out of respect for the other listeners. And I 


would ask all of us at the table to speak 


loudly and clearly into the microphone. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Now, Wanda. 


 MS. MUNN: With respect to the potential of 


splitting the concerns we've been discussing 


into scientific based issues and other issues, 


the terminology for the other issues might 


appropriately be site-wide technical issues, if 


we really do want to make that distinction 


between the two. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Jim? 


 DR. MELIUS: Can't resist -- or multiple site 


technical issues, not always site-wide, but I ­

- either one is fine. But --


 DR. ZIEMER: That's the idea then. 


 MS. MUNN: Complex --


 DR. ZIEMER: Complex-wide. 


 MS. MUNN: -- complex. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: For now we're calling them 


complex-wide technical issues. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

48

 DR. MELIUS: Issues, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. It's nice to agree on 


something. Okay. Jim. 


 DR. MELIUS: We have a book -- no. I would 


point out that there are other issues that are 


complex-wide that are -- various Technical 


Information Bulletins, some of which we have 


under review. I actually think the 


construction worker TIB that we talked about I 


believe at the last meeting or meeting before 


that would -- would sort of fit into this -- 


this category also. And I would just urge that 


if we're going to track some of these that we ­

- we already have SC&A looking at a number of 


these issues. They're looking at the 


construction TIB, I believe they're -- they're 


-- in the procedures list of reviews I believe 


they're looking at a number of others that 


would fall into this category that we -- 


whatever the tracking system is, that we 


include all of those sort of thing that would 


fit into this defin-- you know, some definition 


of complex-wide technical issues 'cause I think 


it would make it easier to keep track and avoid 


duplication or actually build on some of the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

49 

reviews that we might have done -- done 


earlier. Some of these I believe come out of ­

- are taken from actually procedures that are 


developed for a particular site and then they 


are -- develop a new procedure, allows them to, 


you know, generalize that to more than -- than 


one site, and so it would help us I think if 


we, you know, recognize that and kept a more 


comprehensive list. But I would also think 


that for some of these -- these numer-- issues 


on this recent list that -- I'm certainly not 


familiar with them, haven't come up in 


workgroups I've been involved in. But we might 


want to try to at least as -- since it's early 


in the process for NIOSH -- do that -- to just 


solicit some input from the Board and others on 


these -- you know, doesn't have to be at the 


meetings, can be afterwards or something. 


Maybe if -- particularly if we saw the scope of 


what's being looked at and then if -- I think 


if we were tracking them, then we could decide, 


you know, how to best review them if that's 


appropriate or do we wait, or do we have SC&A 


look at -- review the -- review them, you know, 


what do we think is the best steps to take. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. I suspect on the 


construction worker issue, probably it would 


make sense to be on this list. It's a complex-


wide -- and that's pretty far along. But in 


any event, would it be reasonable to ask that, 


for example, as we move forward to future 


meetings, that we not only have a report on -- 


I mean just an update, but maybe at each time 


pick out one of these, maybe one that's pretty 


far along and -- and describe what's being 


done, without presenting a final position but 


perhaps saying here's -- here are the issues 


we're looking at, here -- something like that. 


I don't know if we can do that in the framework 


-- I mean understanding that, for example, on 


CLL there are certain restraints in terms of 


the rule-making process that might prevent 


something that looks like a final report from 


coming to us. But on some of these -- for 


example, assumptions for unmonitored workers, 


maybe we have a presentation that sort of -- 


what's -- what's your thinking on the approach 


and maybe solicit some input before the thing 


is too far down the road. I'm thinking off the 


top of my head here, but I'm wondering if we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51 

couldn't keep the issue before us by having it 


a regularly-scheduled part of the session. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Certainly I think that would be ­

-


 DR. ZIEMER: The two -- the two lists. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I think that would be very 


beneficial to everybody and keep us on track. 


It'd hold us accountable for speaking about 


where we're at on these things. I think we 


need to come forward with a timeline for you 


all, too, that speaks to where -- you know, 


where we anticipate --


 DR. ZIEMER: On each item. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- on each item where we 


anticipate something's going to be provided to 


the Board for your full deliberation. And 


certainly as we approach that, you know, we can 


share with you where we're at at a given point 


in time. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, I think that would be 


perfect. 


 DR. WADE: Let me add another thought for the 


Board to consider on the complex-wide technical 


issues. The matrix approach has served the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

52 

working groups well where all of the issues are 


together, a time line is kept, progress is 


tracked, resolution is noted, follow-up to 


resolution -- I think it might be worth 


considering a matrix that NIOSH would maintain 


for complex-wide technical issues and bring 


that to the Board, or whoever the Board 


designates, at regular intervals. My fear is 


that these things are falling through the 


cracks. 


One sort of nuance of this for the construction 


workers, for example, if a complex-wide 


technical issue revolves around a Technical 


Information Bulletin or results in a Technical 


Information Bulletin, then there's the 


opportunity for SC&A to review that as part of 


the procedures. What's happening with some is 


that they exist outside of that universe and 


therefore they're nowhere to be reviewed and -- 


and I don't think that serves us well. So I 


think we need to capture them, and then the 


Board can decide whether energy needs to be 


brought to bear to be -- to review them. But 


some of them are just out there in -- in limbo 


now. So I would think a matrix might not be a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

53 

bad thing for the Board to consider. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And Larry is nodding in 


apparent agreement with that. Thank you. 


 Wanda Munn? 


 MS. MUNN: First steps for some of our more 


simple minds would be an actual list of the 


items themselves. We --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, I think it -- I think it's 


two lists, is what -- the scientific and the 


complex-wide list. 


 MS. MUNN: Exactly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Exactly. What Brant has shown us 


is, from my perspective, a good start. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 MS. MUNN: But if we're going to have -- if 


we're going to agree on what needs tracking, 


then first and foremost, lists of that -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- those items. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And perhaps at our next meeting 


those lists can appear with at least a start of 


the time line. 


 DR. WADE: Could I even be a bit more 


aggressive? Is it possible to have lists -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

54 

those two lists for the Board to consider 


tomorrow? I mean we -- I think we know what 


the issues are. Not time line, but just a list 


of the items. I don't -- I hate to wait three 


months. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Or for the -- or for our phone 


meeting. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, I mean I --


 MR. ELLIOTT: I'd really like to have -- I'd 


really like to have Dr. Neton's input into this 


and I don't know I can get it by tomorrow. 


 DR. WADE: For the phone meeting then. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: There's phone, yes. I -- I would 


like to bring forward the two lists, I'd like 


to bring forward a time line that speaks 


specifically to each item on the list, and I'd 


like to bring forward a shell of a matrix that 


would be used to track the -- the completion of 


these individual efforts that are on this lis-- 


on these two lists, and I think we can 


certainly have that prepared in advance of your 


telephone call next, and then bring it up -- 


I'm a little reluctant to say I can commit to 


having something for you tomorrow -- 


 DR. WADE: That's fine. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

55

 DR. ZIEMER: That's --


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- or have a complete list. I've 


realized here that this list is being viewed as 


incomplete, and I'd hate to have a second 


chance and miss the target again. 


 DR. ZIEMER: No, I -- but -- I understand that 


the-- these are issues that have arisen in the 


last few months in the framework of some of the 


work that's being done and -- and it -- now is 


a good point to meld that into the previous 


lists of things and -- and to integrate all 


that work. So -- and we do have a phone 


meeting scheduled in January, so that would be 


an appropriate time to -- to have that 


material. 


 Mr. Presley. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Let me -- let me just say that I 


think that this is a very good starting list. 


I don't think you've missed the boat at all, 


but I do think it's a -- it's a start and I 


think we can add to it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I appreciate what's been done on 


it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Okay. Any further comments 

56 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

on either specific questions on the issues that 


were discussed or on the actions for going 


forward? 


 (No responses) 


I think there's a -- we don't need to take a 


formal vote. I think there's consensus here 


that it makes sense to -- to track these things 


and to keep them before the Board on an ongoing 


basis, including time lines and progress. 


Now we do have a break scheduled. We'll go 


ahead and take the break, reconvene at 10:00. 


Remind you again that it's our understanding 


that Senator Obama will be here at 11:15 this 


morning, to my knowledge, if he got home from 


the football game last night. I saw him on TV 


with a Bear -- Bears hat on and I don't know 


how much celebrating went on -- I -- I better 


stop right there. Anyway, Senator Obama's due 


at 11:15. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 9:45 a.m. 


to 10:09 a.m.) 


BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES
 

DR. LEWIS WADE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY


 DR. ZIEMER: I'd like to call the meeting back 


to order. The next item on our agenda is 


called Board administrative issues. Now Board 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

57 

members, let me explain what that means. In 


the past couple of meetings Board members have 


raised some concerns about keeping track of 


their, quote, earnings that they get as being 


Board members, and also their travel 


reimbursements. There've been some issues 


relating to state income tax being withheld by 


the State of Georgia where CDC is located, and 


some Board members have encountered 


difficulties with that. There's also been some 


questions on the consulting rates and concerns 


that there's not equity between this Board and 


a sort of sister Board, the DTRA veterans' 


board. So we have with us today Elaine Baker, 


who's the personnel person for -- 


 DR. WADE: No, committee management. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- committee management person 


from CDC. And I think also on the line -- do 


we have -- is it Janie Oddy? 


 DR. WADE: Yes, we should have Janie Oddy, a 


personnel person from CDC on the line. Janie, 


are you with us? She's calling in as we speak. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: By way of introduction, Elaine Baker 


is the committee management officer for CDC. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

58 

She's an important lady, and she agreed to come 


and to speak to us and to try and answer your 


questions, or to assuage your fears. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And I understand, Elaine, 


that you don't necessarily have a formal 


presentation but are here to answer questions 


that Board members have. Why don't you begin 


with that issue of is there -- does this Board 


get the same -- the same -- 


 MS. MUNN: Compensation. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- is it called a consulting rate? 


 MS. MUNN: Compensation. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Compensation as the DTRA Board, do 


you know the answer to that? 


MS. BAKER: Okay, I'll give you a little 


background information. The --


 DR. WADE: Closer to the microphone. 


MS. BAKER: The General Service Administration 


has a delegated authority from the President to 


administer the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 


In July of 2001 it published a final rule that 


provided information regarding maximum amounts 


that may be paid to advisory committee members. 


Also in that rule it states that an agency head 


can determine whether or not to pay that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

59 

maximum amount. The maximum is level four of 


the executive schedule, and that equates to 


about $550 per meeting -- I'm sorry, per day. 


 The Department in 2001, after the publication 


of the final rule, looked at this issue and 


looked at all of the optives -- HHS optives. 


The Secretary made a determination in 2002 that 


all HHS optives should pay a maximum of $250. 


CDC, dating back from 1983 to 2000, raised its 


rate from $100 per day in 1983, in 1988 to 


about $188 and in 2000 to $250. Now the 


exceptions to this is if in the legislation it 


states a specific rate, then that committee 


will pay its members according to that rate. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So I think the answer then 


is that this is the HHS amount, and this has 


been in effect for how many decades? 


MS. BAKER: Actually 2002. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


MS. BAKER: 2002. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I was being facetious. You know, 


it appears to be about the 1960 rate -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- but -- okay. I'm 


editorializing -- since my plumber makes more 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

60 

than that. Okay? 


Okay, Board members, any questions on that 


issue? So the DTRA board comes under I think 


the Veterans Administration or one of the 


wealthier agencies such as Department of 


Defense or something. I know you'll hate the 


Chairman making remarks like this -- 


 DR. WADE: No, no. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- on the formal record, but I 


mean what are they going to do, fire me? 


 DR. WADE: Cut your pay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, cut my pay, right. Okay, 


Board members, any questions on that? 


Now let me -- let me ask about the issue of the 


state income tax. Who's had problems with 


that? Several -- at least four Board members 


have. They find the State of Georgia taking 


their high level of wages and absconding with 


it. What -- what do we know about that issue? 


MS. BAKER: We'll have to defer to the human 


resources person that's on the line for that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So that would be Janie, did -- 


Janie, are you on the line? 


 MS. ODDY: Yes, I am. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

61

 DR. WADE: Janie, could we ask you to get as 


close to the -- your mouthpiece as possible and 


speak as loudly as you can speak? 


 MS. ODDY: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. The issue before us is the 


issue of Georgia income tax, and I know it 


breaks into two issues. There was yesterday 


and now there's tomorrow. Could you speak to 


both of those issues? 


 MS. ODDY: I guess -- are you talking about 


yester-- tomorrow? 


 DR. WADE: Well, I'm talking about -- 


 MS. ODDY: Okay, one of the things that -- when 


you file, you can file exemption for Georgia 


taxes. The problem is you have to do it every 


year, so if you don't -- if you do it in one 


year, come 1 January if you don't file the 


exemption again, it goes away and reverts back 


to the Georgia taxes. 


 DR. WADE: So there are two issues, I think. 


One is, a Board member needs to file that 


exemption each year. I assume it's at the 


start of the calendar year? 


 MS. ODDY: Yes, each January. 


 DR. WADE: And then there is the issue if -- if 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

62 

the State of Georgia is holding people's money 


from past withholding actions, I would like us 


to help in any way we can to see those Board 


members recoup those funds. 


 MS. ODDY: The only mechanism -- if it's a 


prior year, if it's not -- if it's in the 


current year we can ask for our payroll office 


to -- to refund. But if it's in a year that 


the books have already been closed, it has to 


be filed with the State of Georgia. 


 DR. WADE: Now can we help people make those 


filings? I know -- I know they need to do it, 


but can you call a Board member and work with a 


Board member as to the steps they need to go 


through to accomplish those filings? 


 MS. ODDY: No, sir, I can't. Those are --


those are individual State filings with their 


income tax. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Ma'am, this is Robert Presley 


with the Board. 


 MS. ODDY: Yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: You all took taxes out on us, 


knowing that we did not live and did not work 


in the state of Georgia. We did not find this 


out for a couple of years after the fact. We 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

63 

did not know, number one, that we were being 


taxed by the State of Georgia; number two, that 


we even had to go back and file for taxes 


individually from the State of Georgia. 
I 


think that somebody needs to come up -- step up 


and help us with what we need to do to get our 


money back 'cause not only have I been taxed 


for the earnings -- and I will say meager 


earnings -- also you all turned in the money 


that I was supposed to be reimbursed from my 


travel and my per diem, and the State of 


Georgia has taxed that as earnings. 


Something's wrong. 


 MS. ODDY: Well, the first thing is, on travel 


and per diem, it does not come through the 


payroll office. That is a -- it comes through 


the CDC financial management office. On the --


 DR. ZIEMER: So that's a different -- 


 MS. ODDY: -- (unintelligible) send you the 


Georgia tax form to file for the refund for the 


year, but if it's a current year we can ask 


(unintelligible) to refund the money. If it's 


a past year, they will not refund it. It will 


have to come through filing for your State -- 


it -- through the State income tax refund. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

64

 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda Munn has a question. 


 MS. MUNN: This is more than a little 


disconcerting. As Mr. Presley pointed out, it 


was unknown to many of us, certainly it was 


unknown to me, for at least two years that 


there was any withholding being taken for the 


State of Georgia. When I discovered that there 


was, I was told that what I should do is go to 


the web site for my pay and indicate on that 


web site that I should not have Georgia tax 


withholding. So I did that, but it didn't 


change anything. And I asked about it again 


and was told -- instructed to -- to repeat that 


performance, which I did. I was even queried 


by my CPA at tax time as to what this Georgia 


withholding was on my -- my tax forms, and I 


told him, and he said -- I -- I then asked -- 


I'm certain -- I'm -- I'm not certain who I 


asked, but I did ask someone in our agency 


here, do I have to file a Georgia tax income 


tax return or what do I need to do in order to 


make sure that this significant number of 


hundreds of dollars that was withheld last year 


is returned. And the answer was if you've said 


on your form that you're not a Georgia resident 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

65 

and it should not be taken out, then it will be 


taken care of. But I am pleased to say that as 


of this year -- as of last month, what has been 


withheld this year has now been paid me. 


 MS. ODDY: Yes. 


 MS. MUNN: That -- that's been corrected for me 


this year. But I am hearing you say that I 


have no recourse for prior years, even though 


the instructions that I received apparently 


were either inadequate or incorrect. I'm 


stuck, right? 


 DR. WADE: No, I don't think she's saying 


there's no recourse. I think she's saying you 


have to file for the return, that the 


government can't do it for you, that you have 


to make the representation to the State of 


Georgia. What I'd like to do is to have 


someone call you and walk you through that 


process --

 MS. MUNN: I would --

 DR. WADE: -- hold your hand through that 

process. 

 MS. MUNN: I would appreciate that. 

 DR. WADE: Elaine, I don't know if you have 

something to say. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

66 

MS. BAKER: What my team will do is to work 


with the various divisions, whether it's FMO or 


human resources, with each person that has an 


issue, to walk through each item that is of 


concern and to coordinate it and respond to all 


of the issues. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley again. I 


have another comment. This past year my taxes 


showed -- I asked if I was -- had Georgia taxes 


being taken out and they told me no. Then we 


did get the tax form that says yeah, you've had 


400 and something dollars taken out. I get a 


notice on my statement from the bank that I got 


200 and something dollars from the State of 


Georgia just the other day -- not the 400 and 


something dollars that have been paid out. So 


there's -- there's a tremendous amount of 


inequity here. Three years ago this came up 


again. I had to get the Commissioner of 


Finance and Banking from the State of Tennessee 


to call the State of Georgia to tell them that 


I was not a resident. They wouldn't even 


believe that, and got absolutely no help on 


that. And it should have been taken care of 


then. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

67

 DR. WADE: I'll look --


 MR. PRESLEY: I would appreciate some help. 


 DR. WADE: I think at a minimum you and I need 


to commit to calling each Board member who asks 


now to be called, and to work through their 


issues with them. 


MS. BAKER: We will do that. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. So who -- I assume Wanda, 


Robert -- Mike? 


 MR. GIBSON: (Off microphone) I guess so, I 


don't know, I (unintelligible). 


 MR. PRESLEY: I have another comment. I'd like 


to know if at least every quarter that we could 


get a statement -- this MyPay business don't 


work. I think five years ago we asked that 


quarterly we get a statement about our earnings 


and what we have been paid for travel and stuff 


like that so we can keep up with it, and I 


haven't seen that yet. I mean that's only good 


business. 


 MS. ODDY: Sir, I can provide you a statement 


from the system each quarter, but it will only 


include your payroll and we will have to get 


with FMO to prepare a statement for your travel 


and per diem. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68

 MR. PRESLEY: I would appreciate that. 


 MS. ODDY: Okay. 

 MS. MUNN: That would be very helpful. 

 DR. WADE: So now just so we get this right, 

there -- Wanda, Robert, Mike and Dr. Lockey, 


Brad? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: We'll commit to calling those people 


within two weeks. 


MS. BAKER: Yes, we will do that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know, I mean I'm 


(unintelligible). 


 (Whereupon, multiple Board members spoke 


simultaneously.) 


 DR. WADE: Okay, we'll call you -- we'll call 


each Board member and we'll discuss this issue 


and we'll work through your individual issues. 


With regard to the monthly -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: You don't need to call me. 


Georgia's not figured out how to get my money 


yet. 


 DR. WADE: We will give your name to the State 


of Georgia. But that --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think states that -- some 


-- some of it has to do with reciprocity 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

69 

between the states, and some states have 


agreements with other states. If I'm having 


Indiana tax withheld, then apparently Georgia 


doesn't. But they may not have an agreement 


with Tennessee. 


 MR. PRESLEY: They (unintelligible) -- they 


(unintelligible) an agreement with Tennessee. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Then that's probably part 


of the -- the issue, but I don't have that 


problem so you don't need to -- 


 DR. WADE: So a call from Elaine and I to every 


Board member except Paul at this point -- 


MS. BAKER: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: -- and then the list of people who 


would like a quarterly roll-up prepared of 


earnings and then of travel. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Why don't you just do that for 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. WADE: Do it -- we'll do that for each 


Board member. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, now let me point out -- now 


I don't know -- the MyPay thing works fine for 


me. I get -- I get the thing every two weeks. 


I download it, it gives me a statement of yearto-date and current earnings. And so -- and -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

70 

do you -- do you have problems with it, Gen? 


DR. ROESSLER: I -- I get it -- you know, you 


can check in any time and find that 


information. The only problem I have with 


MyPay is that sometimes pay goes into it very 


mysteriously, and I have no idea what days it's 


for, what it's for. Other times I will submit 


an invoice for certain days, identifying what 


they're associated with -- whether it's 


preparation or a workgroup or a Board meeting ­

- and nothing happens. And this is all very 


mysterious. It's very difficult for me to line 


up what I think my pay should be with these 


mysterious deposits and then the mysterious 


ones that don't appear. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I think the main issue 


between MyPay and the prep times that we turn 


in to CDC through LaShawn is -- is matching 


them up. I -- I admit that I don't know how to 


match them up 'cause I can't identify 


particular --


 MS. MUNN: I can't tell which is which. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, we'll -- we will call each 


Board member and talk about these issues 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

71 

individually. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now the travel part, it's 


understood now that travel is handled 


separately, a separate group from the -- the 


compensation group. 


MS. BAKER: Yes, but we'll coordinate with all 


offices. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I don't know why tax would be 


taken out of travel. That doesn't make sense. 


I've found that what -- in -- in those travel 


voucher amounts, they do appear mysteriously in 


my bank account and I simply have to go back 


and match them up with the voucher that I get 


from LaShawn, and I have been able to match 


them up, so that's -- that's the way I do it. 


 DR. WADE: And that's the way I do it, too. 


But we'll talk to each Board member. Thank 


you, Elaine, very much for making 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, thank you very much. 


 DR. WADE: -- and your (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any other issues related to 


administration of your travel and so on, 


compensation, taxes? 


 (No responses) 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

72 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Okay. Thank you very much. 


(Pause) 


HARSHAW CHEMICAL CO. SEC PETITION
 

MR. STUART HINNEFELD, NIOSH/OCAS
 

The next -- we're actually ahead of schedule, 


and what we'd like to do is to get underway 


with the Harshaw petition now. We have talked 


with the petitioner and that petitioner I 


believe is going to be on the line, although 


may not wish to speak to the petition. And if 


necessary, we will interrupt if -- if the 


Senator arrives during this presentation, we'll 


simply break at that point and recognize him 


for purposes of making a statement. 


But we'll ask Stu Hinnefeld now if he will 


begin the presentation on the Harshaw Chemical 


Company SEC petition. 


 DR. WADE: I would ask, is the petitioner for 


Harshaw on the line? The petitioner for 


Harshaw? I won't identify the petitioner, but 


is the petitioner on the line? 


 (No response) 


Okay. Stu, you can proceed. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Good morning. I'm not sure, 


Mr. Chairman, if you know -- there seems a 


little excitement out in the hall. There might 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

73 

be something going --


 DR. WADE: I can't hear you. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I know, it's just anti-- you 


can't hear me? 


 DR. WADE: I couldn't hear what you just said. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I was making a lame joke. I 


said there's a -- seems to be a little 


excitement out in the hall, and I don't know if 


you guys are aware of -- there might be 


something going on. 


 DR. ZIEMER: They may have realized that -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Probably anticipating your 


presentation. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm hoping to be interrupted. 


I'm here today to present the outcome of the 


evaluation report for the -- NIOSH has 


completed for the Harshaw Chemical plant. This 


is a chemical plant in Cleveland. It was one 


of the early uranium production plants during 


World War II. When the government had a need 


for -- decided they wanted to investigate a 


nuclear weapons program and started producing a 


lot of uranium, Harshaw Chemical plant in 


Cleveland was one of the plants they called on 


to assist in that effort. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

74 

This is an 83.14 petition. The Board members 


of course all know what that is. This is a 


situation -- for the audience, a situation 


where NIOSH has determined that we have -- we 


have determined it's not feasible to perform 


dose reconstructions with sufficient accuracy 


for these -- for these cases and therefore we 


have proceeded -- essentially initiated with 


the SE-- initiated the SEC process. We found a 


-- a claim that we could not do. We felt like 


we didn't have sufficient information to do a ­

- a dose reconstruction for that claim and -- 


and then we evaluated similar claims, as well, 


so the class is not only the one that we can't 


do, but people who have similar 


characteristics. 


There's a two-pronged test of course that has 


to be established -- or has to be met when 


establishing an SEC by -- first of all, by 


83.14-- by 83.14 or 83.13. Is it feasible to 


estimate the level of radiation doses to the 


individual members of the class with sufficient 


accuracy; that's one test. And if not, then is 


there a reasonable likelihood that the 


radiation exposure may have endangered the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

75 

health of the members of the class. So if that 


is a yes, then there -- the -- then that is the 


two-- or you've passed the two-pronged test and 


then you're in a position to proceed forward 


with the Special Exposure Cohort class. 


Harshaw Chemical Company produced significant 


quantities of several uranium compounds. They 


started with milled uranium ore and other feed 


materials that came from other plants that were 


operating at that time, and the products that 


they produced included uranium chloride, 


uranium tetrafluoride, uranium hexafluoride, 


uranium trioxide, uranium dioxide and uranyl 


nitrate hexahydrate. 


On at least two occasions Harshaw processed 


some low enriched uranium. Those -- that 


process seemed to be what we would refer to as 


a sweetening operation where they would use 


some fairly low enriched uranium and blend it 


with natural uranium, and you get a bigger 


quantity with an enrichment in the middle. So 


that seemed to be what they were doing. We 


know of two -- two instances at least when they 


did that. 


The chemical -- the description of how these 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

76 

products were produced is provided in more 


detail, or somewhat more detail, in the Special 


Exposure Cohort petition evaluation report 


which has been provided previously. 


They performed other activities as well. 


Between 1943 and 1944 they produced a number of 


what we might call special radiological 


materials. These were other uranium compounds 


that are not so commonly produced anymore or 


for very long in the -- in the uranium -- in 


the -- in the weapons production cycle. Those 


compounds are uranyl fluoride, sodium diuranate 


and uranyl nitrate. (Unintelligible) look, I 


think that might be uranium nitrate, actually. 


From February of 1947 until August of 1950 


Harshaw also produced in a laboratory bench-


type quantities of thorium-234. Thorium-234 is 


a daughter product of uranium-238, has quite a 


short half-life -- I believe it's on the order 


of about a month -- and so would have a high 


specific activity. You wouldn't need very much 


ac-- very much mass to have a pretty high 


activity. But this was essentially a 


laboratory-scale operation in one -- in that 


particular area. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

77

 The production of most of the compounds that 


they were producing ended in 1951 or perhaps a 


little earlier. The production of uranium 


trioxide continued until August of 1953. The 


plant was placed on standby, except that they 


had some final conversion. They had a few feed 


materials they still wanted to convert because 


it essentially put it in a more stable -- more 


stable form than -- than maybe the feeds, or a 


more broadly usable form than the feed 


materials that they had in the plant. And then 


there was some decommissioning work that was 


done after that for a couple of years, I 


believe. 


The processes that are relevant to the class is 


just sort of a restatement. The milled uranium 


ore and other feed -- feed materials from other 


plants were converted to -- by a series of 


chemical treatments to the desired products. 


And I'd just mentioned the products. The 


chemical treatments are described a little bit 


in the -- in the evaluation report. 


Important to note here that the milled uranium 


ore will contain the other radioisotopes from 


the uranium decay chain, not just the uranium 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

78 

isotopes themselves, and so you'll have a 


number of non-uranium isotopes with potential 


for exposure since the uranium ore was -- ore 


was handled there. 


 And the production at this plant increased 


dramatically during World War II because the 


Manhattan Engineering District had quite a -- 


quite a demand for uranium during that time, 


and this was one of the early plants that was 


providing it. 


In terms of the information we have available 


that potentially could be used for dose 


reconstruction, the routine uranium bioassay 


program didn't begin until December of 1949. 


We have some limited instances of bioassay data 


available from a few dates earlier, but not -- 


it wasn't a routine bioassay program. It sort 


of seemed like a ad hoc kind of sampling 


routine that doesn't provide very thorough 


understanding of what was available or what was 


being done then. 


 Air monitoring results are available from the 


period 1948 through '53. These are reported in 


units of alpha activity per unit of volume, so 


these are -- will provide information for that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

79 

later period, '48 through '53, that may be 


useful. 


 Throughout the operation we have no monitoring 


data available for internal exposure to non-


uranium radionuclides. This would be thorium234, the other radionuclides that may go along 


with it, maybe down to radium, so we have no 


internal monitoring data for those items. 


We do have some personnel external radiation 


monitoring data -- you know, film badge type 


data. And we do have quite a number of direct 


radiation measurements available from pretty 


early in the operation. Those kinds of 


activities would probably be relatively 


consistent over the course of operation, the 


kind of dose rates from uranium and uranium 


products are -- are fairly well established and 


is fairly standard. 


And we do have some documentation concerning 


the early Harshaw medical monitoring program -- 


medical program, and it does indicate that 


workers received pre-employment chest X-rays 


and annual physicals that included two X-ray 


shots, a chest X-ray and a pelvic X-ray exam. 


Therefore we believe we can adequately 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

80 

reconstruct the doses that were associated with 


the medical exposure associated with the work 


based on other Technical Basis Documents that 


we've already published and knowledge of that 


medical program. 


So in terms of progress of this petition, we 


determined that it was unable -- that we could 


not obtain sufficient information to complete 


the dose reconstructions for a particular 


claim, an existing claim -- sometimes called a 


litmus test claim or a representative claim -- 


and in June we notified the claimant that we 


could not reconstruct the dose. And we 


provided the claimant with a SEC petition Form 


A, which is the short form that essentially 


says please sign here and send it back and 


we'll proceed. The petition was received back 


by us at the end of July and so we proceeded 


now with the evaluation report and provide it 


to the Board. 


 Our conclusions on our evaluation of the data 


available is that we found that we lack the 


monitoring, process and source information 


sufficient to estimate the internal dose 


resulting from non-uranium nuclides for the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

81 

period August 14th, 1942 through November 30th 


of 1949. 


 Now the important thing to remember here is 


that these non-uranium radionuclides that would 


have entered with uranium ore would -- first of 


all, we don't have any particular information 


about the extent of their content or how -- 


what their content was, how much activity there 


was from these non-uranium isotopes compared to 


uranium at any point. And not only do we not 


have any information at any point, but it would 


not be constant. Because of the chemical 


processes that were used at Harshaw, they -- 


the extent of equilibrium or disequilibrium 


would have been distorted a number of times 


during these chemical processes, and so there 


will be potential for exposure to materials 


with -- with a variety of relative activities. 


You know, meaning relative -- non-uranium 


activity to uranium activity, so it -- it makes 


it impossible to tie the non-uranium exposure 


to say a reported uranium exposure as a -- a 


fraction or something. 


Now we may have sufficient information to 


estimate the external doses and internal doses 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82 

from uranium. We definitely believe we have 


enough information for medical exposure from 


this period, from the class -- for all doses -- 


or from those doses during the period, and we 


believe we may be able to do all doses from 


December 1st, 1949 on. I'm being a little 


equivocal here because there is still -- it 


still I think remains to be proven that we can 


do the uranium intakes from this early period. 


We do have some monitoring data from the early 


period. We have monitoring data that starts 


relatively regularly in late 1949. And some 


people who worked and had monitoring data from 


'49 on we believe also started working in 1943 


and worked throughout. So if you -- for an 


internal monitoring exposure if you have 


bioassay data from '49 on, there may be a way 


to bound an intake that that person received 


earlier -- you know, years earlier. That may ­

- it may be feasible. It may turn out that the 


bound is so high as to be incredible and so it 


may not work out, so that's why I wanted to be 


a little equivocal about our ability to do that 


in terms of the uranium intake. 


I think we probably feel a little better about 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

83 

the external dose from the -- during the class 


period. We think we have pretty good 


information and even -- I mean a source term 


model for uranium for external dose is a 


relatively good way to do external dose from -- 


from those materials. And like I said, I 


believe we can do the medical exposures, as 


well. 


Now from 1949 on we have bioassay data -- 


relatively regular bioassay data. We have air 


sampling data that provides total alpha 


activity. So we believe it may be possible to 


reconstruct not only uranium intakes but also 


the non-uranium intakes later, based on those 


sets of data. I believe that remains to be 


demonstrated, and so, like I said, I'm being a 


little equivocal about whether we can actually 


-- will find out ultimately that we can find 


out we can do that or not, but we wanted to 


proceed with the -- with the petition at this 


point because it provides a remedy for the 


people in this class. We know we cannot do 


these particular internal doses up through 


November 1949, and it allows some cases then to 


receive their answer now as opposed to pursuing 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

84 

further research and maybe extending it later 


on. We may be back at a later date with an 


additional 83.14 that says that well, we've 


evaluated and maybe we really can't do this 


dose and we need to extend these dates later. 


There is certainly -- we may receive a petition 


from Harshaw that petitions for later dates, 


which would then require evaluation and 


demonstration of that. So -- so but -- for the 


reason of moving forward with a certain set of 


claims that we -- we are confident we will not 


be able to do, we're presenting the petition 


and the evaluation report at this time. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Stu. Stu, I noticed in 


the case of Monsanto NIOSH provided a very 


helpful chart where they broke down what you 


could and what you couldn't do. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: If you were to do such a chart for 


-- for this particular site for -- for Harshaw, 


I just want to make sure I caught all the 


pieces. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You can do occupational medical -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

85

 DR. ZIEMER: -- for those years. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So let's focus on the external. 


You can do occupational medical. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You can do external uranium 


exposures, or --


 MR. HINNEFELD: We believe we can do external 


exposures pretty much in their entirety. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Of -- of all types --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- 'cause they have -- okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So let's say external beta/gamma. 


What about external neutron -- there was no 


neutron --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there's no neutron 


monitoring, but we have a precedent for a 


research of the relative contribution of 


neutrons to photon dose -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: For the --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- for these types of 


compounds, for these fluoride compounds. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So if you were doing such a chart, 


the external would say dose reconstruction 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

86 

feasible for beta/gamma -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- for neutron and for medical. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: For internal, I think you said you 


may be able to do uranium. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think for uranium we would 


say --


 DR. ZIEMER: Or is it --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- maybe. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: If we put the chart together, I 


think we would say maybe. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's a new -- new column in the 


chart. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I'm a new kind of 


presenter. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I understand. But the 


internal issue really revolves around the other 


nuclides then, the --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Clearly we won't be able to 


reconstruct the other radionuclides for this 


class period. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: Stu, I think you have more slides. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

87

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, I'm sorry. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. MELIUS: Chair's prerogative. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So our -- our fin-- our 


conclusions continue about health endangerment. 


We've determined that members of the class were 


not exposed to radiation during a discrete 


incident likely to have involved levels of 


exposure similar to a high -- or as high as 


those during a nuclear criticality accident, so 


we don't believe that presence necessarily is 


sufficient for health endangerment. But we do 


believe that the evidence indicates that there 


was opportunity for chronic exposures that 


could certainly endanger the health of members 


of the class. 


 The definition of the class is reproduced here. 


It's also on the petition evaluation report. 


It's all the Atomic Weapons Employer's 


employees who were monitored, or should have 


been monitored, at the site while working at 


the Harshaw Harvard-Denison Plant located at 


1000 Harvard Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio for a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

88 

number of days aggregating at least 250 


workdays from August the 14th, 1942 when the 


relationship with AEC began -- or been going 


with the MED at that point -- through November 


30th, 1949, or in combination with work within 


the parameters established by one or more of 


the other classes -- SEC classes. So this is 


the definition. 


With respect to who should have -- who were 


monitored or should have been monitored, 


there's information about contamination at the 


plant, contamination exterior to the plant. 


think it would be -- I can't really speak 


definitively about, you know, what -- how will 


that be interpreted because it's not NIOSH's 


interpretation to make. I think it would be 


hard -- it would be hard-pressed, though, to 


identify people who should have not have been 


monitored by today's standards at the Harshaw 


plant, based on descriptions of radiological 


condition of the plant. 


 The recommendation of the petition evaluation 


report is for the period of August 14, 1942 


through November 30th, 1949 NIOSH finds that 


radiation dose estimates cannot be 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

89 

reconstructed for compensation purposes, so we 


feel that it's not feasible to reconstruct the 


doses with sufficient accuracy during that 


time, and that the health was certainly 


potentially endangered -- the health of the 


class -- members of the class was potentially 


endangered. 


So that's the completion there. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Now just -- I'm going to 


reiterate again then. I'm -- for internal, we 


would say not feasible. For external, for -- 


you're saying feasible. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Across the board, pretty much. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 DR. MELIUS: And some internal, maybe, you 


said. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Some internal 


maybe, the uranium (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, yes, I understand that, but 


basically by -- by the fact that they eliminate 


the other nuclides for -- you're not going to 


be able to do internal. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We cannot do a complete 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

90 

internal dose reconstruction -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Partial. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Internal's going to be a no, not ­

- not a maybe. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There may be certain individual 


claimants that we have bioassay -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Well, yeah --


 DR. ZIEMER: But for the purposes -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- data on sufficient for 


internal uranium there may be a way -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- of this kind of chart, that's 


the driver. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You can't do internal. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: For the class. 


 MR. PRESLEY: How many cases are we talking 


about? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, I e-mailed the office 


for that this morning and asked them to answer 


by 3:00 o'clock, so I will know later on today. 


It's not -- I don't think it's a large number 


of cases 'cause this is, you know, early on at 


Harshaw. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Questions, Board members? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

91 

I 

Dr. Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: Just to follow up on that 


question, I'd also be curious about what cases 


you've done in -- for the later time period. 


suppose -- assume there's overlap and I think 


it's helpful for context to understand what's 


going on. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't know that I have the 


information to get specific to your question, 


Dr. Melius, but I have general information here 


about the number of claims. We have -- for 


Harshaw Chemical we have been given 59 claims 


from DOL for dose reconstruction. Through our 


efforts at reconstructing what we could 


reconstruct, we have completed 31 of those 59, 


and of those 31, let's see, 25 were found to be 


compensable and six were found to be noncompensable. So that's -- that's all the data 


I have right here. Stu's -- Stu's --


 DR. ZIEMER: And we don't have the years on 


those, is --


 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't have the years, no. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other questions, comments? Yes, 


Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I'm just curious about the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

92 

film badge data. You say you have data for 187 


workers for that time period. Is that -- can 


you put that in context? That's 187 out of -- 


how many people would have been working there? 


Was it --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, standing --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- 100 percent badging, was it -- 


you know, do you know anything more about that? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Standing here today, I don't. 


The -- I -- I'm pretty confident it wouldn't be 


100 percent. Harshaw I believe was a 


relatively good-sized plant, and that doesn't 


sound like it would have been 100 percent. Now 


whether the Harshaw plant involved -- you know, 


surely -- certainly probably would have 


involved other chemical operations and so maybe 


the 187 people who worked in Plant C where the 


work was done, maybe they were monitored. I 


don't think -- but we don't have a complete 


record. I mean it's not like some plants where 


we have pretty much the complete badging 


record, but we don't have that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, Harshaw was certainly doing 


a lot -- lot of other things. I mean they were 


a major chemical supplier in the United States, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

93 

so certainly many more people working there, so 


this is one -- is this one building that was 


exclusively used for this work out of a plant, 


or part of a -- one building, or do we know 


what the physical -- how much separation would 


there have been between these workers and 


others who worked for Harshaw? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The description of -- of the 


plant refers to the uranium work being done in 


Plant C. Now Plant C, by experience, may be 


more than one building. And I don't have 


readily at hand the information about the 


relative position of this plant relative to 


other facilities that may be included. The 


intent here is that this was done at I believe 


one plant, which may not be one building, at 


that --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- particular address on 


Harvard Avenue. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And so --


 DR. ZIEMER: So someone who might really not 


have been involved with this particular work 


but who was in that building might be able to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

94 

make a claim under this -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- description, I believe -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- if they were in that building. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I would think that anyone, 


unless they were, you know, really specifically 


excluded from this building, unless there's 


evidence that there was this population that 


worked at this address that was excluded from 


this building, unless there's evidence to that 


effect, I would think anyone who worked at this 


address would be included in the class -- that 


would be my judgment, but mine's not the final 


judgment. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Brad. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Stu, do we have any information 


on what -- the cleanup or anything of it? I 


see it goes to '49. What happened -- what 


happened then, did --


 MR. HINNEFELD: In December of 1949 we obtained 


-- they began a routine bioassay program, and 


so we have monitoring data that -- that's 


pretty good from December 1949 on. We also 


have a routine air monitoring program that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

95 

actually started a little earlier than that. 


That will allow us, we believe, to -- with the 


appropriate, you know, calculations and 


caveats, will allow us to bound the internal 


exposure to non-uranium nuclides. It may turn 


out that it doesn't. It may turn out it's not 


as good as we think it is going to turn out, 


and so it may not work out to that effect. But 


our belief today is that we're -- you know, we 


-- it may allow us to do that, so we haven't 


included that yet. 


We also haven't completed that -- the 


evaluation of that question so that we can move 


forward with the class that we know we can't do 


and provide answers to that group of people. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Dr. Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: Can I ask what would -- what's 


sort of the plan timetable and procedure for 


doing that? I'm presuming that since ORAU 


prepared -- worked on this report, some of the 


same people would be involved in go-- going 


for-- I'm just sort of trying to understand 


when we have these --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, sure. The routine that's 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

96 

followed on these -- and it's the same for -- 


for these 83.14 sites -- is that when an 83.14 


class is added, there are a number of other 


things -- you know, you're not done with the 


site because there are the non-presumptive 


cases that have to be done. And so when the 


83.14 class becomes effective -- so that will 


be after the Secretary's letter and then the 


waiting period. When it becomes effective, 


then the class -- the cases in the class that 


have presumptive cancers, we ship those off to 


the Department of Labor right away and we say 


we believe these fit the criteria and that we 


don't need to deal with them anymore. 


 The non-presumptive cases, which we've 


typically had pended up until that point, we 


un-pend and then we attempt -- then we work the 


dose reconstruction. In order to do that, we 


have to have essentially a site profile or 


something like site -- like a site profile that 


tells the dose reconstructor how to do the dose 


reconstructions for these non-presumptive 


cancers so that they're done consistently. So 


during the interim -- you know, from the time 


we feel pretty confident that we're going to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

97 

have an 83.14 class -- up until the time of its 


effectiveness, what we're working on is what is 


our non-presumptive approach; what can we do 


during non-presumptive -- for the non-


presumptive cancers, and publishing that 


document, maybe not in time, but certainly we 


want to shoot for that time bec-- and then -- 


so that we can proceed with the non-presumptive 


cancers in doing the partial dose 


reconstructions. 


 During that development of that -- we still 


call them site profiles or TBDs. During that 


development is when these issues will be vetted 


and we'll be critiquing, you know, the -- the 


robustness of the data and do we really -- will 


we really be able to do that. So that is the 


process that's followed for these. So it will 


be during the preparation of that site profile 


for non-presumptives that the issues will be 


addressed. 


 DR. MELIUS: A-- and does that include the 


later time period, also? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Ye-- it will include the later 


time period, as well, yes, because we're trying 


to -- you're trying to write one to address it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

98 

all. And then if it turns out we can't, like I 


said, we could end up back here. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. I'm just... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other comments or 


questions? Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I just -- I -- I think this is 


probably for a later disc-- may be for a later 


discussion, but the -- you mentioned that for 


the later time period you have air sampling and 


therefore you may be able to do the non-uranium 


exposures. But I -- I think you've very 


clearly stated, and I was going to raise this 


as a question but you addressed it, that you 


don't know necessarily the variation in 


activities throughout the process. Things are 


going to concentrate, you're going to have 


different ratios. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: How is that going to be different 


in the later time periods when you have -- I'm 


assuming in '49 it was still probably gross 


alpha air sampling. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, the --


 MR. GRIFFON: How -- how will you all of a 


sudden know the ratios then to apply for non­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

99 

uranium? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: For -- for a bounding dose 


estimate, which is what's required, I don't 


know that you need to know the ratios. You 


have a -- if the bounding estimate is the most 


accurate you can do, then that's what we'll do. 


And for a bounding dose estimate, if you choose 


the radionuclide that is most advantageous to 


the claimant -- and it may be different for 


different claimants, you know, since we don't 


know what the radionuclide was -- you can 


choose the dose from the one that's most 


advantageous. It would be different for 


different claimants, depending upon where -- 


where their cancer originated and if any -- any 


of those particularly radioactive materials -- 


what -- you know --


 MR. GRIFFON: And you have --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- aggregated in that organ. 


So it may be possible to do a bounding exposure 


for the non-uranium materials. It may. 


 MR. GRIFFON: For this earlier time frame you 


just have no air sampling at all -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, we don't have air sampling 


data for this period. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

100

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Stu, could -- just for the sake of 


argument, could one utilize later air samples 


as an indication of what earlier concentrations 


might have been, or do we not know enough about 


the processes in time to say that what was done 


later could represent the earlier time period? 


I mean that -- well, that would be one approach 


if you were to say well, we can reconstruct 


dose and here's how we would do it. I mean 


that -- that's --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- what would come to mind as a 


first step and -- and so -- tell -- tell me why 


you can't do that. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, the -- it -- it may be 


possible to do that in some situations, but 


recall the history of these -- these MED 


plants, the 1942 plants. They operated during 


the War. They produced this uranium and they 


needed to produce a bomb, and so there was a 


certain mindset that we're going to produce a 


bomb, and health and safety was not terribly 


well-evaluated. In fact, it wasn't until about 


1948 when the Health and Safety Laboratory 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

101 

started looking at these plants, said, you 


know, if we're going to keep making uranium and 


we're going to keep running these plants, we 


need to find out the conditions and 


radiological conditions at these plants and do 


some evaluation. And so once the Health and 


Safety Laboratory started paying attention to 


these plants, you know, you can reasonably con­

- you should conclude that they made 


recommendations, 'cause they almost always did, 


and they felt like, you know, this needs to be 


done better and they attempted to do it better 


from a health and safety standpoint. So air 


sampling data from -- you know, after HASL got 


involved and saying that is representative of 


work that was done during World War II, I don't 


think that's a logical conclusion that you 


should make. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. So I think the argument 


then is that even though you have air samples 


later, those are coupled with probably improved 


practices based on the fact that you now have, 


in a sense, a regulator looking over your 


shoulder --


 MR. HINNEFELD: We -- we tend to see that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

102

 DR. ZIEMER: -- and -- and therefore you can't 


make the argument that the practices remained 


the same -- or the practices were the same 


later as they were in the earlier case. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And we tend to see that when 


the Health and Safety Laboratory gets involved 


in these plants, that -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- changes will happen 


relatively quickly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Robert. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Stu, we do not know where the 


material came from for Harshaw. Is that 


correct? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, I think we know in -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Do we --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- general. I don't know for 


sure --


 MR. PRESLEY: But we can't --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- where the milled ore came 


from, for sure. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's what I'm saying, the 


milled ore, you know, if it came from -- if it 


was Congo milled ore it had a higher content. 


I think --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

103

 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, you mean like the Belgian 


Congo K-65 --


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- what they called K-65 in 


some places? I -- right, that would have -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Had a big --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- significantly higher -- I 


don't -- I don't know. We may, but --


 MR. PRESLEY: And that's --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I don't know standing here. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Because, you know, if it -- if it 


did come from there, it would have a 


significantly higher amount of air parti-- in 


the air particles. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, particularly radium. I 


mean the --


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- Belgian Congo ore was really 


-- really nice ore. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Sorry I'm not more long-winded. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any more comments? Okay --


 MR. GRIFFON: Just -- just one more -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, Mark, okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- thing on external, I -- 187 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

104 

workers, and I wasn't talking out of the whole 


plant site, but you don't have any indication 


whether that was -- whether they had a practice 


of monitoring all workers in that Plant C area 


or --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, standing here, I don't 


know. I think our -- our information -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Most likely it wasn't -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- about that early -- early 


film badge data is -- is not real robust. I 


don't think we have a lot. I mean it's not 


like we have 187 people who were monitored from 


1940 through 1948, you know, that we can see 


that, you know, certain -- you know, it was the 


same population monitored over time. I 


believe, if I'm not mistaken, it's a -- it's a 


very limited time frame that we have the 


monitoring data for, and it just happened to be 


187 people on that report which -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: But does it cover all four years 


equal-- or -- or -- I mean --


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, I don't believe it covers 


all four year equally. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Do we have any sense of -- do we 


have that data anywhere that we can look at it 

1 

2 -- 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

105 

kind of and say how many workers were monitored 


 DR. ZIEMER: LaVon, do you --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm looking to LaVon 


Rutherford, who's a little more familiar with 


the information about the site than I am. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Do we actually have air -- we 


have film badge monitoring data starting as 


early as 1943 and 1944, but it's sparse amount 


of da-- I mean it's small numbers because they 


were not monitoring everyone during that time 


when they first started. And then as -- as the 


activity is increased and as they moved on 


further, the number of people monitored 


increased. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and the basis for the 


badging? 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, the --


 MR. GRIFFON: Do you know anything -- 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- the higher --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- about the badging practices? 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- exposed people, they were 


looking for --


 MR. GRIFFON: Higher exposed --


 MR. RUTHERFORD: That's basically what we've 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

106 

seen, anyway. It looks like the higher exposed 


people were monitored. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But you -- and you think you have 


enough information about -- 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- who was monitored that you can 


at least bound the external dose for all 


workers in the class? 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Is that the idea? 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. Between that information 


we have there, information we have from other 


sites that were similar activities, you know, 


with the information between that -- all of 


those sources, I think we have enough to do -- 


to bound the external exposure. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Good. Okay. Robert, did you have 


another question or --


 MR. PRESLEY: I'm sorry. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Now on this -- on this 


particular one, we have the opportunity to make 


a -- a motion in terms of both the SEC and if ­

- if we are supportive of the recommendation 


from NIOSH to have appropriate wording, I 


think, on the -- the potential for dose 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

107 

reconstruction of certain cases that -- 


 DR. MELIUS: I think we need to get some 


specific wording on Monsanto to get some 


feedback from --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and --


 DR. MELIUS: -- Board members about the 


Monsanto and --


 DR. ZIEMER: Indeed we can do what we did 

yesterday --

 DR. MELIUS: 

--

Yeah, just sort of two-step and so 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- and -- and have a generic 

motion, and if it -- if it passes, then we can 


ask that the specific wording be developed in a 


manner similar to what we did yesterday. And 


the -- the hope would be that by tomorrow we 


would have a -- a group of actions that we 


could look at the specific words. 


So the Chair would entertain a motion -- pro or 


con, as the group desires -- or -- okay, Wanda 


Munn. 


 MS. MUNN: I move that we accept the 


recommendation to declare a Special Exposure 


Cohort for the years established in this 


petition and for the individuals established in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

108 

the petition. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. The motion would be to 


recommend to the Secretary approval of this 


Special Exposure Cohort as described, and the 


exact wording of the motion to be confirmed 


later in the meeting. 


 MS. MUNN: Correct. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Second. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And seconded by Mr. Presley. Now 


is there any discussion on this motion? 


 (No responses) 


The understanding then is if the motion passes 


we will return to it later in the meeting to 


make sure that we agree on the exact words 


which will define the class and any related 


items. 


All in favor, raise your right hand. 


 (Affirmative responses) 


And it appears to be unanimous. Any opposed? 


 (No responses) 


 Any abstentions? 


 (No responses) 


And is Dr. Poston on the line at all? We 


should check on that again. Apparently not. 


Then the record will show that the motion has 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

109 

passed. Thank you very much. 


(Pause) 


Dr. Wade has suggested that we proceed with a 


little bit of sort of housekeeping business on 


future meeting dates, and we can -- we can go 


over that now. It's something we would have to 


do sometime in the meeting. And Lew, you can 


review for us the upcoming meetings and then 


beyond that what is needed. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. What we have on the -- the 


schedule now is a Board call on January 11th. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Do we -- we don't have the time 


established for that yet, do we, or -- 


 DR. WADE: Well, we can do that right now. Out 


of deference to our friends on the west coast, 


we could start at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. 


 MS. MUNN: That would be nice. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Be fine. 


 DR. WADE: 10:00 a.m. Eastern time on January 


11th we'll have a Board call. 


 DR. MELIUS: 8:00 a.m. 


 MS. MUNN: Don't even start. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Last time we did it I think at 


11:00, was it, Eastern time, and -- 


 MS. MUNN: We did it at 11:00 Eastern time. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

110

 DR. ZIEMER: Did that work pretty well? 


 DR. WADE: We'll let a Westerner pick the time, 


8:00 -- now you guys have got me doing it -- 


10:00 or 11:00 a.m. Eastern time? 


 MS. MUNN: Will we be able to conclude our 


business if we start at 11:00? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I believe so. 


 DR. WADE: I believe so. 


 DR. MELIUS: One way or the other. 


 MS. MUNN: I would prefer 11:00. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Without objection, we'll do 11:00 


o'clock. 


 DR. WADE: 11:00 a.m. on the 11th, that'll help 


those of us memory challenged. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. 


 DR. WADE: Then on February 7, 8 and 9 the 


Board will meet -- we're intending to meet in 


Denver, weather not permitting, on 7, 8 and 9. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I've got 6, 7 and 8, is it -- are 


we changing it? 


 DR. WADE: Yes, we changed it --


 DR. ZIEMER: 7, 8, 9 is what I have. 


 DR. WADE: -- 7, 8 and 9, yeah -- long time 


ago. Then on April 5th we have a Board call. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

111 

I would say ostensibly at 11:00 a.m. again. 


 MS. MUNN: On April --


 DR. WADE: 5th. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 5th. 


 MS. MUNN: -- 5th? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 MS. MUNN: Have we abandoned the March call, I 


believe? 


 DR. WADE: Yes, in the latest e-mails that we ­

- trying to deal with everyone's schedule, we 


have now April 5th. 


 MS. MUNN: No 7 March. 


 DR. ZIEMER: No. 


 DR. WADE: Then on May 2nd, 3rd and 4th we have 


a Board meeting -- May 2nd, 3rd and 4th, a 


Board meeting at a location to be determined. 


This is -- I think we accommodated everyone's 


wishes. 


Now that's the end of what's on the schedule 


now. I have proposals to make to you, so what 


I would -- what I would propose to do is give 


you dates, and then tomorrow we can talk about 


them and hopefully finalize dates. And all I'm 


doing in choosing these dates is using just a 


rule of thumb of spacing the meetings out, on 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

112 

average, two and a half months. 


So I propose on June 12th, a call. No need to 


comment now; we can comment tomorrow. 
I 


propose that on July 24, 25 and 26, a face-toface meeting. I propose on Sep-- 


DR. ROESSLER: May I ask about July? 


 DR. WADE: Surely. 


DR. ROESSLER: Okay. I don't have it on my 


calendar here, but we have a Health Physics 


meeting. Do you know when -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: The Health Physics -- 


DR. ROESSLER: -- that is? 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- meeting is July 8 through 12. 


DR. ROESSLER: Okay, that's good. 


 DR. WADE: September 6th, a call. 


 DR. MELIUS: Can -- can you go back -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, go back to July, please. 


 DR. WADE: July 24, 25 and 26, a face-to-face 


meeting. September 6th, a Board call. October 


2nd, 3rd and 4th, a face-to-face meeting. 


 DR. MELIUS: Can you repeat those dates? 


 DR. WADE: October 2nd, 3rd and 4th. December 


6th, a call. 


UNIDENTIFIED: December? 


 DR. WADE: December 6th, a call. And then 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

113 

January 2008 -- what year is this? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, it'll be 2008. A year from 


this January. 


 DR. WADE: January 8, 9 and 10, 2008, a faceto-face meeting. And that will get us a whole 


year of activity on the docket and hopefully 


give you adequate planning time. 


Now again, I appreciate the fact that I've 


probably stepped on someone's important dates, 


and you can -- we can talk about that tomorrow. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We'll revisit this later in this 


meeting. Go back and look at your calendars, 


unless you have them already and know of 


conflicts. 


 DR. WADE: Right, we can make adjustments. I 


thought this would be a good way to do a two-


step and try and get a year on your -- on your 


calendars. 


 MS. MUNN: Very helpful. 


(Pause) 


 DR. ZIEMER: We're trying to determine if 


there's any way to track where the Senator 


might be in terms of his schedule. 


 MS. MUNN: Should we have any discussion about 


where we're going to meet in May? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

114

 DR. WADE: We could. I'm op-- open for 


discussion of where we would meet in May. 
I 


think the rule I've been using is to let the 


events dictate, and we should be where the 


people that we will be acting upon will be 


located. And sometimes that's hard to 


determine out in front, but I'm open to 


suggestions. We talked about going to 


Pinellas, so let's continue to talk. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Larry, in terms of what's 


coming --


 MR. ELLIOTT: I'll try to help out a little bit 


here. By February you -- you have Fernald in 


advance now, Fernald SEC evaluation report's in 


your hands. You will also have I believe -- we 


hope to have Bethlehem Steel evaluation report 


to you. LANL evaluation report should arrive 


to -- in your hands in January, as well as Dow 


Chemical, and I believe that's all I can -- all 


I can identify at this point. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So Fernald and LANL might be -- 


 DR. WADE: Well, you know, you're going to talk 


about Blockson today. I don't know what you're 


going to decide about Blockson. You've got a 


workgroup meeting on Chapman Valve. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

115

 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 MR. PRESLEY: NTS coming up. 


 DR. WADE: Got NTS issues, so I don't know that 


we can choose now, but it's good to get a sense 


of the Board as to -- to where you might like 


to be. Mike, thoughts? 


 DR. MELIUS: I think we need to probably get 


back to Los Alamos and Hanford because of the 


SEC. We haven't -- we haven't been to either 


place in quite some time. And given the size 


and the interest of the -- the groups there, so 


I think those should be under consideration, so 


forth. I think Fernald is another group that's 


been active and interested, so that should be ­

- list and -- 'cause I think it's important 


with the SEC process that we sort of do -- do 


what we can to accommodate the people in terms 


of public interest. It's -- clearly with the 


numbers involved, it's getting very difficult, 


but I think that -- that should probably be the 


-- be the major consideration. 


 Then there are places like Pinellas and Pantex 


and so forth that we haven't been to and -- at 


all and we -- we ought to be trying to hold 


meetings -- meetings there. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

116

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, there's a number of 


possibilities, and probably by our next meeting 


we'll have a better sense of what -- what's 


most pressing and -- and select from one of 


these sites. Does that give the office enough 


lead time in terms of hotel arrangements? 


Okay. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so when we have -- tomorrow 


we'll be able to close on dates, and I 


appreciate the thoughts as to location. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any word --


 DR. MELIUS: Pinellas in July. 


 DR. WADE: The other issue that we have tabled, 


not formally, is Dr. Melius's suggestion of a 


working group to deal with 83.14 petitions. 


While we have a moment we could begin that 


discussion. I think with an 83.14 petition 


fresh in our minds, it might be an appropriate 


time -- or anything the Chair would think -- 


 DR. MELIUS: I -- I think --


 MR. ELLIOTT: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


question yesterday --


 DR. ZIEMER: Sorry? Oh, Larry, did you say you 


had some feedback for us? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: From the questions on General 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

117 

Atomics yesterday, we can provide feedback if 


you want. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let's do that, at least -- 


what -- sure, if you have the information now, 


it would be good to -- probably wouldn't take 


very long. 


 DR. WADE: And ergonomically speaking, I would 


suggest you either raise the microphone or -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: He needs the exercise. 


 DR. WADE: This is NIOSH, after all. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah, the questions were for 


data captures for General Atomics. We did 


three specific data captures at General 


Atomics. We also did NRC research, our search 


documentation, and found nothing on General 


Atomics for that period. And let me see, we 


specifically looked for AEC inspection reports 


and found nothing. We actually got word from 


the site that they think they were disposed, 


so... 


 DR. ZIEMER: State of California, did -- 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: We -- we haven't gone 


specifically and -- to the State of California 


and asked them for General Atomics, but we -- 


but what we determined was the State of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

118 

California did not have a license -- or did not 


have control of General Atomics at that time, 


not to -- but --


 DR. ZIEMER: They were not yet a -- an 


agreement state. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, they an agreement state. 


Actually in 1962 we found out they were an 


agreement state, but -- but from what we're 


reading through, the documentation, it appears 


that AEC actually had control over most of the 


material up until the early '70s, especially 


the special nuclear material -- 


(unintelligible) nuclear material. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Well, thank you for 


that information. Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: You tell me on the data -- you 


mentioned three data captures -- 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- can you expand more on what -- 


what -- what did you find and... 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, as -- I think I went 


over yesterday what we found. We did find 


external monitoring data for all employees 


through the -- through the operating period. 


We found internal monitoring bioassay data for 

119 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

uranium. We found no thorium monitoring data 


for the period. And we found no -- actually we 


really found no monitoring data, internal 


monitoring data, for other radionuclides, as 


well. 

CONGRESSIONAL COMMENTS 

SENATOR OBAMA

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much for 

that information. We're going to pause here 

now and... 

(Pause) 


Do we have a lavaliere mark -- mike at the 


podium, or another mike? Where's our AV guy? 


(Pause) 


They're putting on a mike now, okay. 


(Pause) 


Ladies and gentlemen, we're pleased to have the 


Senator from Illinois, Senator Obama, with us 


today. He's been kind of on a whirlwind. I 


noticed you were in New Hampshire and then at 


the ball game last night, and here we are -- 


this'll be the most exciting thing you've done 


all week. Welcome to -- welcome to the meeting 


of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 


Health. 


(Pause) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

120 

SENATOR OBAMA: Can everybody hear me? 


Wonderful. 


Well, to all the members of the Advisory Board, 


thank you very much for taking the time out of 


your planned agenda to allow me to speak to you 


today. I very much appreciate it and I -- I 


apologize in advance for the -- the fuss that ­

- that my appearance is causing to your 


meeting. 


During my two years in the United States Senate 


my staff and I have been advocating on behalf 


of thousands of men and women in Illinois who 


worked in our nation's nuclear weapons program. 


They're hard-working Americans. They toiled 


for years under difficult conditions to produce 


the armaments that helped to protect us during 


the Cold War. And as a nation, I think we owe 


them our gratitude. 


The reason I'm here today is because it's my 


strong feeling that that gratitude needs to be 


expressed more than just in words. As the 


Board members are well aware, these workers 


performed tasks that were often very dangerous. 


Day after day workers were handling a variety 


of radioactive substances with a minimal amount 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

121 

of protection. As a result, a large number of 


the people who worked on the weapons program 


developed cancers and other radiation-induced 


illnesses. Many have already died and many 


more are dying. 


I think it's also important to note that many 


of them were not entirely aware of the risks 


that confronted them at the time that they were 


working there, and their families were not 


aware of it. We just heard testimony from a 


woman whose father used to come home and would 


be shaking dust off -- off his -- his clothes 


after having cleaned out bins containing 


uranium in them, and there was no awareness on 


his part or his family's part that this could 


be hazardous. 


So as all of you are aware, and I'm recognizing 


I'm saying stuff that -- some -- some things 


that you already know, to help these brave 


Americans, Congress passed the Energy Employees 


Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act 


in 2000 to provide compensation to eligible 


workers. 


 Now unfortunately, the process to receive 


compensation has proven to be not an easy one. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

122 

It requires a substantial amount of proof on 


the part of workers, proof of each individual 


worker's years of employment, the type of work 


they performed, the radiation to which they 


were exposed, as well as more general 


information about the plant's procedures, 


including its safety measures and its 


government inspections. For many families and 


many individuals, this evidence is extremely 


difficult to obtain, decades after the fact. 


 Now fortunately we have the SEC petition 


process, which is why the Board is meeting 


today. So I just want to spend a few moments 


talking about four Illinois plants in 


particular that have -- or I hope shortly will 


have -- SEC petitions before the Board. I have 


some more detailed comments that I'll submit to 


you for the record. 


At the outset let me say that this issue is a 


serious one in the state of Illinois. Our 


state ranks third in the nation in the number 


of sites covered under this program. More than 


3,500 claims have been filed by workers and 


their survivors at 17 different sites. The 


seriousness of this problem has brought 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

123 

together a bipartisan coalition of members of 


Congress -- Senators Philbin and myself, as 


well as Congressmen Costello, Shimkus and 


Weller -- to help these workers receive the 


compensation they deserve. 


Today the Board considers the SEC petitions for 


Blockson Chemical Company in Joliet and Allied 


Chemical Company in Metropolis. And we have, 


by the way, some workers who drove the eight 


hours from Metropolis to be here today. At the 


Blockson plant 298 claims have been filed on 


behalf of workers; only nine have been paid. 


As I understand it, an SEC designation is 


warranted when there is a lack of evidence to 


accurately reconstruct the doses of radiation 


to which the workers were exposed. In this 


case NIOSH admits that they have no monitoring 


data for the Blockson workers. NIOSH has, 


however, contended that there is sufficient 


information to conduct a dose reconstruction by 


calculating the radiation that the Blockson 


employees were exposed to based on radiation 


that workers at an unrelated factory were 


exposed to and on urinalysis data from some, 


but not all, Blockson workers. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

124 

I confess I am not a radiation expert. There 


are some around this table who are. But it 


does strike me that that is a somewhat suspect 


way at arriving at whether Blockson workers 


were sufficiently exposed to deserve 


compensation. It also seems to me to be 


contrary to the intent of the original 


legislation governing this compensation 


program, and I'd strongly urge the Board to 


review this policy. 


 I'm also concerned that no official worker 


outreach meeting was conducted with the 


Blockson workers. Seems to me that if you're 


going to do a dose reconstruction, you'd want 


to talk to all the workers, find out what 


evidence they have, and give them all a chance 


to comment on the procedure you're going to 


follow. So as a consequence I would urge the 


Board to postpone its decision regarding the 


Blockson SEC petition until after the Board's 


independent auditor has had a chance to review 


NIOSH's arguments. 


At the Allied Chemical plant in Metropolis 


there have been 227 claims filed, but only 28 


have been paid. Unlike Blockson, I'm pleased 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

125 

that NIOSH has correctly recognized that there 


is no exposure data from the Allied plant with 


which to reconstruct the remaining doses 


accurately. The only concern I have about the 


Allied SEC is that NIOSH evaluation report does 


not seem to take into account evidence of 


residual contamination, as well as shipments 


from other sites around the country. Workers 


have explained that these shipments may have 


contained recycled uranium residues. For this 


reason, I hope the Board will consider 


expanding the Allied Chemical class. 


At your February meeting I know that you will 


be considering the SEC petition of the Dow 


Chemical plant in Madison, Illinois as well. 


Unfortunately I won't be able to attend that 


meeting, but I want to lend my support to that 


petition, and I want to commend the Southern 


Illinois Nuclear Workers, the group that 


initially brought this issue to my attention, 


for all their hard work on behalf of Dow and 


General Steel workers. 


Of the 253 claims on file for Dow, only two 


have been approved. Many of these claims are 


at least five years old, and unfortunately some 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

126 

of the claimants have died before they were 


able to receive compensation. Workers at the 


Dow plant were exposed to uranium, beryllium 


and thorium metal. Few radiation monitoring 


badges were ever worn. There was no organized 


safety program in place, and workers were not 


informed nor provided with appropriate 


protection equipment. 


I commend NIOSH for nominating Dow Chemical for 


an SEC, and hope the petition can be approved. 


But I am concerned about the size of the class. 


I understand that the coverage period will be 


limited to 1957 to 1960, despite overwhelming 


evidence that the workers were exposed to many 


harmful sources of radiation beyond 1960, for 


which NIOSH cannot reconstruct doses. As a 


consequence, I hope the Board will examine the 


time frame proposed for the Dow SEC class. 


I also want to bring to the Board's attention 


General Steel Industries, or GSI, in Granite 


City, Illinois, which has significant amounts 


of residual contamination to be considered. In 


fact, the site was not cleaned up by the 


Department of Energy until 1996. To date GSI 


has filed 744 claims on file, but none have 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

127 

been paid. Of the 192 cases referred to NIOSH 


for dose reconstruction, only four have been 


completed. Clearly these dose reconstructions 


cannot be performed in a timely fashion. 


 NIOSH also admits that it has no monitoring 


data of any kind for the General Steel plant, 


and there is no comparable site around the 


country. For these reasons, NIOSH should 


identify General Steel for SEC status. 


Finally I'd like to offer some general comments 


about the implementation of this compensation 


program. First, there is an -- a problem of 


inordinate delays. Much more -- based on what 


I'm hearing from families and the workers -- 


needs to be done to ensure dose reconstructions 


are performed in a timely fashion. The notion 


that claimants would have to wait more than six 


years after enactment of the law for their 


doses to be reconstructed is far beyond the 


kind of delays imagined when this law was 


enacted. To this end, I would urge NIOSH to 


implement performance and evaluation goals for 


all the employees working on this program. 


Second, there is the problem of lack of 


information. Over the past two years the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

128 

Illinois Congressional delegation has sent 


numerous information requests to many of the 


agencies and staff involved with this program. 


While some requests have been answered in a 


reasonable time frame, many have not. If a 


United States Senator or a United States 


Congressman cannot get timely answers to 


reasonable questions, I'm hard pressed to 


imagine how a 70-year-old retired worker who 


doesn't have a lawyer and has cancer is going 


to obtain the information he needs to 


effectively present his claims. 


Third, I'm concerned that there needs to be a 


more balanced perspective in the way that these 


claims are considered. I appreciate the hard 


work that all of you do, and I recognize that 


oftentimes we're dealing with difficult 


scientific issues. At the same time, there's a 


perception on the outside and among the workers 


and families that have been impacted that the 


Board isn't able to properly perform its 


responsibilities because of lack of medical and 


worker representatives on the Board, and this 


is an issue that I plan to address with the 


White House in the near future. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

129 

Just my -- my closing point would be this. We 


are talking about a -- a finite number of 


workers, many of them aging, who -- as I said 


at the outset -- conducted work that was vital 


to this nation's interests. In many ways they 


are veterans of our Cold War. Many of them 


were also veterans of hot wars. It strikes me 


that to the extent that we have a presumption 


that they should be helped and can be helped, 


we should apply that presumption. I am always 


concerned with bodies like this that the 


presumption works in the opposite direction, 


and that because of budget considerations we 


try to restrict, as much as possible, access to 


help on the part of the workers and their 


families. I hope that we keep in mind that if 


this had been our father or our grandfather in 


this same situation, we would want them to be 


treated fairly and that that is uppermost on 


the Board's mind as it makes these decisions. 


So I thank you very much for allowing me to 


address you today. My staff and I look forward 


to working with you on behalf of Illinois' 


workers who are covered by this important 


program, and I appreciate the service that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

130 

you're rendering, both to the country and to 


these workers. Thank you very much. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And Senator, we thank you very 


much for taking time from your busy schedule to 


be with us today. 


 DR. WADE: And we have that other letter. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I would like to call attention of 


the assembly to the fact that we also have with 


us today representatives or staff people from 


Congressman Weller's office and from 


Congresswoman Biggert's office. Are those 


staff people here with us now? Yes. My 


understanding is that there will be a joint -- 


I believe a joint press release by 


Representatives Weller and Biggert, and also 


that they have a -- a letter that they are I 


believe jointly going to prepare and send to 


members of this Board. 


But we want to recognize the staff members. 


Do you -- do you wish to -- to come to the mike 


and just identify yourselves for the record 


here and that way --


 DR. WADE: Just raise --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, just raise... 


(Pause) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

131

 MR. FULLER: Yes, Andy Fuller with Congressman 


Jerry Weller. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Andy. Thank you for being 


with us. Andy is with Congressman Weller's 


office. And was there someone here from 


Congresswoman Judy Biggert's office, as well? 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, caught up in the wave, he 


said. Okay. 


Well, I -- the record will show that -- that 


that person is here, as well, and we'll look 


forward to receiving the letter and the press 


release as well from these two individuals. 


(Pause) 


I think, LaVon, if -- if you would come to the 


mike, we may wish to follow up briefly on the 


questions that were before us just before the 


Senator arrived. I think Mark has a question. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Just -- just to follow up on the 


question of -- I -- I think it was the -- you 


described it as very sparse data for air 


sampling --


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, that is correct. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- and out of those records you 


review-- can you describe that a little more 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

132 

'cause you've got some --


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually that was for the 


Monsanto petition. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, that was Monsanto? 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah, that was Monsanto, and 


we actually got those reports on the document 


drive for you, made available, and I will go 


ahead and finish that -- addressing that. The 


Monsanto petition -- Mark had identified -- you 


know, asked the question how much air sampling 


data we actually had. And we -- we had -- what 


we have is summaries of data from 1947 to 1949 


in progress reports. We don't have any real 


data prior to that time, and these are -- like 


I say, there are summaries. And it is alpha 


activity. And as I pointed out to Mark, the -- 


the activation products and other things, there 


were pure beta-emitters that we have no data to 


support air sampling for. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Yes, Jim. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Can you give us a summary table 


for the -- the General Atomics SE-- 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: What we can and can't do? 


 DR. LOCKEY: Yes. Can you do that now for us? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Just describe it now, yeah. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

133

 MR. RUTHERFORD: I can say that -- and -- and 


again, this is -- this is a lot like what Stu 


had mentioned. In the 83.14 we'd identified a 


class where we -- you know, a portion of 


something we could not do and we wanted to move 


forward with that -- that class. Right now we 


believe we can do uranium internal dose for the 


class period. We believe we can do all 


external dose for the class period, both beta, 


gamma and neutron. We do not believe we can do 


any thorium internal exposure for the class 


period. Oh, and we do believe we can do 


occupational medical. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So the chart would be all 


external --


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- would -- is feasible. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Internal uranium is feasible. 


Internal thorium or other nuclides -- 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Are not feasible. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- are not feasible. So the --


the recommendation is based on inability to do 


internal dose. Is that correct? 


And Jim, follow-up on that? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

134

 DR. LOCKEY: Just -- just that I'm satisfied, 


based on the initial motion when we tabled 


this, and I -- I'm ready to go ahead and make a 


motion that we approve this SEC. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, before you do that, let's 


see -- Jim, you have also a comment? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, actually I'm not satisfied 


and I -- in terms of the answers we've gotten 


so far, and I guess my particular concern is 


the one that Dr. Ziemer raised, is -- is 


whether we have adequate justification for the 


-- it's actually a list of buildings and -- 


there, it's on page 11 of the evaluation 


report, sort of connecting up some of these as 


to whether there was -- given what can or 


cannot be or what can't be re-- reconstructed, 


are we certain that that's -- all of that is 


applicable to all of those facilities. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Our position was is that we 


had no evidence to support that those buildings 


were not -- should not be included. Okay? We 


have evidence that -- you know, if -- without 


enough information that -- that we could say 


that -- that thorium materials were not stored, 


used or processed in those facilities -- you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

135 

know, without that information, we were -- we 


were forced to go down that route. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And am I correct in understanding 


there -- there's no evidence that anyone would 


have been restricted, either by badge or other 


means, to only certain buildings. For example, 


if -- if I'm a maintenance worker -- well, or 


let's say a worker in the accelerator -- that I 


can go into any building on the site, as 


opposed to some -- you have -- you have no -- 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- evidence that they -- 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: We have no evidence --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- were in some way restricted to 


certain buildings based on -- 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: They may have been, but -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- badge, coding or whatever. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: They may have been, but we 


have evidence of that that we've found to date. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So you -- we almost have to assume 


if they worked on the site, they could enter 


any of the buildings, regardless -- you know, I 


-- I raise questions, well, why, for example, 


is the analytical lab in there. But if those 


folks can wander into some other building, then 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

136 

that's immaterial, I guess. 


Did you have a follow-up, Jim, or -- Jim 


Lockey. 


 DR. LOCKEY: So I understand the default 


position is since you can't reconstruct 


thorium, you don't know what building it was 


in, we'll assume that it can't be constructed 


for anybody who worked in any of those 


buildings at any time. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: That is correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Remind me on -- I think General 


Atomics was the one where we actually didn't 


even have a sort of straw vote. We tabled it 


outright; is that correct? 


 DR. MELIUS: Correct. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's exactly right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And Jim, are you proposing at this 


time a motion? 


 DR. LOCKEY: I propose a motion we approve the 


SEC petition for General Atomics. 


 DR. ZIEMER: With the caveat that we would find 


appropriate wording again, as we have arguing 


on the others. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Correct, and with the table 


outlined -- summary table as to what can be 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

137 

done and what can't be done. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is there a second to that motion? 


 MR. PRESLEY: I second that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Actually technically we have to 


have a motion to take it off the table, but I 


think -- unless there's an objection -- the 


Chair will rule that -- that there's consensus 


that we take it from the table and -- unless 


there's objection. Any objection to taking it 


from the table and acting on... 


 (No responses) 


Okay, so it's -- the motion is before us. 


Comments, questions? Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Really just -- this is to refresh 


my memory on the uranium, you say you can 


reconstruct uranium exposures. What data do 


you -- do you have bioassay -- individual 


bioassay data? 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah, we have individual 


bioassay data for the period for uranium. 


In ad-- in addition to that, Mark, we also have 


some lung counts that were conducted after 


1966. There -- there's questions right now how 


much quality those lung counts -- or how much 


information they're going to provide, so we are 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

138 

going to focus on the bioassay data because the 


lung counts were -- at the time they were 


identified as experimental, and those lung 


counts were solely identified to workers that 


were working with uranium. They had absolutely 


noth-- they did not isolate out any of the 


thorium workers, so... 


 DR. ZIEMER: LaVon, do -- do you know if the 


uranium bioassays were uranium-specific? In 


other words, were they doing -- was it a 


chemical bioassay where you do the chemical 


process and actually get the uranium out or was 


it a gross alpha that would -- 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: It was a gross alpha and we 


actually looked at the idea of using that gross 


alpha data to possibly bound our thorium. But 


the problem was is the thorium operations were 


so diverse and were not used in conjunction 


always with the uranium such that you could -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: So you don't know --


 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- develop the ratios 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- from the gross alpha whether 


it's uranium or thorium. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

139

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And I'm -- I'm -- 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: And recognizing the bioassay 


program was set up for uranium workers, it was 


not specifically associated with thorium 


workers. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Gotcha. I -- I was trying to get 


a feel for whether or not -- what would happen 


if you just assumed everything was thorium, but 


you're still going to miss a bunch of people -- 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: That's the concern -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- is what you're saying. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- that was exact -- our exact 


concern is is we may have missed the actual 


person that was the higher exposed individuals 


for the thorium itself. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Okay, gotcha. Board, are 


-- are you ready to act on this -- on this 


motion? 


Okay, all in favor, say aye -- well, let's 


raise hands, let's catch it here. 


 (Affirmative responses) 


We've got one, two, three, four, five. 


 And opposed? 


 (No responses) 


 And abstaining? 

140

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

(Indicating) 


We've got two absten-- three abstentions. 


Okay. Actually that means the motion carries, 


and we will have to develop wording again on 


this one, as we are doing on the others. 


I think we're going to go ahead and proceed 


with our lunch break and give you a little -- 


little bit more time to -- to wolf down your 


lunch. We'll -- we'll recess until 1:00 


o'clock. Thank you very much. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 11:43 a.m. 


to 1:09 p.m.) 


BLOCKSON CHEMICAL CO. SEC PETITION
 

DR. BRANT ULSH, NIOSH/OCAS


 DR. ZIEMER: We're now ready to resume our 


afternoon session of the Advisory Board on 


Radiation and Worker Health. The first item on 


the afternoon agenda is the SEC petition from 


Blockson Chemical Company. The presentation 


for NIOSH on their review of the petition is 


going to be presented by Dr. Ulsh. Also I 


think we may have some petitioners either 


present or on the line, do we? Let's double-


check. 


 DR. WADE: I would ask if the petitioners or 


their representatives are here in the room or 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

141 

on line, would you identify yourselves. 


 MR. LAPINE: My name is Michael Lapine. I'm 


one of the attorneys working with Dennis 


Kellogg, who is one of the petitioners for the 


Special Exposure Cohort for Blockson Chemical. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Michael. 


 DR. WADE: And you'll have an opportunity to 


make a statement, if you'd like, after the 


statement made by NIOSH. 


 MR. LAPINE: Thank you, sir. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any others, either here or on the 


phone? 


 (No responses) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let's proceed then. Brant, 


if you'll make the presentation and then we'll 


proceed from there. 


 DR. ULSH: Okay. Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. I was 


told this morning by Ray that he had trouble 


hearing me in my presentation. Ray, how are we 


now? Is it good or -- okay, all right. 


All right. As Dr. Ziemer mentioned, my name is 


Brant Ulsh, and I'd like to talk to you today 


about the NIOSH evaluation of the Blockson 


Chemical Company SEC petition. And it occurs 


to me that a lot of us sitting around the table 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

142 

here and a lot of the NIOSH staff are much more 


familiar with this process than -- than those 


of you folks sitting out in the audience, so I 


thought I might just take a few minutes to talk 


about what I am here to tell you and what I'm 


not here to tell you. 


First of all, let me just walk through the 


process as you might have experienced it if 


you're a claimant in our program. When you 


submit a claim for compensation, it's submitted 


to the Department of Labor. They -- the 


Department of Labor verifies employment and the 


covered condition, so employment at a covered 


facility, in this case, Blockson Chemical 


Company; and also in this case, a cancer that 


might be caused by radiation. So that would be 


any type of cancer, with the exception of 


chronic lymphocytic leukemia. 


Once the Department of Labor has verified those 


facts, they refer the case to NIOSH for dose 


reconstruction. Now usually we'll do the dose 


reconstruction and send it back to the 


Department of Labor and they will make a 


compensation decision, either award 


compensation or don't award compensation. Now 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

143 

that's the way the process normally works. 


In some situations, however, NIOSH is asked to 


evaluate whether or not we really have the 


means to do dose reconstruction to inform the 


Department of Labor's decision. And we are 


faced with that kind of a situation today with 


the Blockson Chemical Company. 


So the message that I want to get across to you 


is that I'm not here to make a recommendation 


on whether or not compensation should be 


awarded to any particular claimant or group of 


claimants, but rather to comment on our 


evaluation of whether or not NIOSH can even do 


dose reconstruction. And there are a couple of 


possible outcomes, and this is certainly not 


meant to be an exhaustive list, but let's just 


consider what might happen today after I give 


my presentation and the petitioner has an 


opportunity to speak and the Board deliberates. 


 They could choose to recommend an SEC class. 


And if they did that, they would issue a 


recommendation. The Director of NIOSH would 


also issue a recommendation, and then it would 


go to the Secretary of Health and Human 


Services for him to consider and issue his own 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

144 

recommendation to Congress. 


On the other hand, the Board might choose not 


to recommend the class, in which case NIOSH 


would continue as we have been doing, do dose 


reconstructions for individual claimants, and 


as we finish those, refer them back to the 


Department of Labor so that they can make a 


compensation decision. 


 And lastly, the Board might choose to take more 


time to think about it, refer it perhaps to 


their audit contractor for more consideration. 


Now as I said, this is not meant to be an 


exhaustive list. The Board can do -- it can 


act in whatever manner it sees fit. But those 


are three possible outcomes as what could 


happen today. 


All right. So with that introduction -- oh, 


let me tell you just a little bit more. We are 


here to consider a petition that was submitted 


from outside NIOSH by a group of petitioners 


that don't believe that NIOSH has the means to 


do dose reconstructions with sufficient 


accuracy. So let's move into the -- the meat 


of the presentation. 


So just a little bit about what happened at 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

145 

Blockson. Most of you in the audience probably 


already know that Blockson Chemical Company was 


a facility that their primary mission was to 


manufacture technical phosphates. Now they 


were -- Blockson Chemical Company was 


approached by the Atomic Energy Commission 


about taking one of the product streams that 


Blockson uses -- used in their commercial 


operations, and this is the phosphoric acid 


stream, and the AEC asked Blockson -- 


approached Blockson about separating uranium 


from that phosphoric acid stream. So that was 


the primary covered work that occurred at 


Blockson. 


So we're not really -- we're not talking about 


the normal commercial work that happened at 


Blockson, but rather the special work that the 


AEC, Atomic Energy Commission, asked Blockson 


to perform. 


And once the uranium was separated into a 


product called yellowcake, that material was 


then packaged -- it's a uranium concentrate. 


It was packaged into drums and shipped off-


site. 


Okay, so here's a little schematic that shows 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

146 

pretty much what I just talked about. The 


material that was used in Blockson's process 


was phosphate rock from Florida. That -- that 


rock arrived on site, and it was separated into 


a couple of streams. The first stream -- oh, 


supposedly I have a way to do a laser pointer 


here but I'd probably wind up screwing it up. 


The first stream is the top stream here. This 


is the commercial operations that were used for 


the technical phosphate production. 


The second stream, that the AEC was interested 


in, is right here, the phosphoric acid stream. 


And that phosphoric acid stream was diverted 


first into a pilot plant. There was a pilot 


plant built to demonstrate the feasibility of 


this process. That was quickly followed by -- 


let's see if I can do this -- Building 55. 


That building was constructed specifically to 


do the work that AEC was asking Blockson 


Chemical Company to perform. 


Now, the important thing to note here is that 


in this stream here, the phosphate stream, 


there is a radionuclide called radium that 


follows that phosphate stream. When radium 


decays, one of the daughter products is radon. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

147 

And I know that that is a topic of great 


concern for the Blockson folks. I'd like to 


spend a little bit of time talking about that. 


The radon, as I mentioned, did not go -- the 


material that generated radon did not go into 


Building 55. All right? So I know there's 


some concern about radon. The material that 


generated radon, the phosphate rock, came from 


Florida. So I'm going to get into in a little 


bit how we estimated radon doses for Blockson 


workers. But this is an important distinction 


to keep in mind. Technically, the radon -- the 


material that generated radon didn't even go 


into Building 55 and wasn't necessarily part of 


the covered work at Blockson -- at the Blockson 


site. 


Okay, here is a little bit of history of the 


Blockson site, at least as it concerns the 


covered work that the Atomic Energy Commission 


asked them to do. 


The pilot plant at Blockson was constructed in 


1951, and Building 55 was constructed shortly 


thereafter, in 1951 and '52. There was a 


change in ownership during the covered work. 


Work was transferred from the Blockson Chemical 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

148 

Company to the Olin Mathieson Chemical 


Corporation in 1955. And in 1958 the contract 


was amended to specifically limit the 


production of yellowcake to 50,000 pounds per 


year. And the finally the contract ended and 


production ceased in 1962. 


Okay. One of the first things that we did was 


to interview former Blockson workers -- we 


interviewed five workers -- to get their 


recollections on the details of the work that 


was performed at the Blockson site. And the 


five workers were pretty much in agreement that 


the work crews in Building 55 were small -- 


they consisted of from two to six individuals ­

- and they were constant. It wasn't one group 


of workers one day and another group of workers 


the next day. 


Now, this is pretty consistent with the pre-


project documentation that we have, some 


correspondence that went back and forth between 


Blockson Chemical Company and the Atomic Energy 


Commission, where they anticipated that there 


would be approximately 18 to 20 workers 


involved in this work. So you know, there were 


multiple shifts at Blockson, so we're in the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

149 

right ball park here. 


 The workers were also pretty consistent in 


their recollection that the access to Building 


55 was controlled. You had to have a security 


clearance to get into Building 55, and there 


were guards posted to limit access to Building 


55. So we don't have a lot of people wandering 


in and out of this building. 


Now the workers did have -- the workers did 


have differing recollections of whether or not 


-- once the yellowcake was produced and it was 


being loaded into drums, they had differ-- 


differing recollections about whether or not a 


hopper was used or whether or not that was done 


by hand. To be claimant favorable, we assume 


that it was done by hand. That leads to -- in 


general, to higher exposures, so that's what we 


-- that's what we consider. 


There was also unanimity -- consistency, at 


least -- that the area in Building 55 was 


washed and -- was washed down regularly. One 


of the workers recalled that it was done in 


between shifts. 


Now none of the workers could recall explicitly 


a urinalysis program or activities that they 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

150 

recognized as a radiological control program. 


Okay. So this was one source of information 


that we consulted, worker interviews. There 


were other sources. We issued a site profile. 


The latest revision is Revision 1, and that was 


issued on June 29th in 2004. 


We also have urinalysis data. For those of you 


in the audience, what this is, it's a urine 


sample that was analyzed for uranium content. 


We have 122 samples that cover 25 workers. So 


again, taking into account the recollections of 


the workers about the number of people who 


worked in the building, and also the pre-


project correspondence, we're again seeing that 


there were approximately 25 workers involved in 


this work at the Blockson site. 


 Now there were certainly more workers at the 


Blockson site. They just weren't involved in 


this particular mission. 


We also consulted the site research database, 


as we always do. This is a database of 


documents that was generated by the ORAU team, 


our contractor. You see there the interviews 


with the former Blockson workers. And finally, 


we reviewed the material provided by the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

151 

petitioners themselves. 


All right, a little bit of explanation about 


the process here. Once a petition is submitted 


to NIOSH, NIOSH works with the petitioner to 


get that petition into a form that will qualify 


for evaluation. Now I want to be very careful 


about how I say this. When we say qualify for 


evaluation, that doesn't have any implication 


about whether or not the petition will 


eventually be approved. It's just to get the 


petition into a form that we can adequately 


evaluate and come to a decision. And that 


qualification occurred for SEC number 45, this 


was the first petition, on March 6th, 2006. 


Now, we also had a second petition related to 


the Blockson site, and that is SEC-58, and that 


qualified on August 9th of 2006. And shortly 


thereafter these two petitions were merged into 


one, on August 30th of 2006. 


Okay. The initial class proposed by the 


petitioners were all employees at Blockson who 


worked in Building 55 from 1951 through 1962. 


NIOSH expanded this class to read "All 


employees who were monitored, or should have 


been monitored, and who performed work for the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

152 

Atomic Energy Commission in Building 55 and the 


Pilot Plant during the years of 1951 through 


1962." 


All right, let's talk a little bit about the 


bases for the petition. When -- when a 


petition is submitted, the petitioner presents 


reasons that they think that NIOSH cannot do 


dose reconstructions with sufficient accuracy. 


And these petitions -- 45 and 58, that were 


then merged -- had these concerns in them. 


First, the petitioner was concerned that there 


was no monitoring for worker exposure. They 


were concerned about the particle size that we 


were using in our calculations of internal 


dose. And they were also concerned that the 


inhalation to ingestion pathway was not 


considered. And I know that's a bit cryptic, 


but I've got some more slides on this so I'll 


cover it then. And finally, they were 


concerned that NIOSH had not considered uranium 


daughters. 


Okay, so let's walk through these. Here's the 


concern about monitoring data, and the 


petitioner was concerned that we didn't have 


exposure records. Well, in fact it is true 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

153 

that we did not have external dosimetry. We 


haven't located any external dosimetry. So 


when I say external dosimetry, what I'm talking 


about is a -- in this time period it would have 


been a film badge that the workers would wear ­

- probably on their lapel, that's pretty 


typical -- to measure the radiation coming from 


sources outside their body. For instance, 


standing near a drum of yellowcake. All right? 


We also have not located any air sampling for 


this particular facility. 


 We do, however, have bioassays. We have 122 


bioassay measurements, which cover 25 workers. 


Now again, we're coming up to the number of 


workers here. It's pretty consistent that it's 


between 20 and 25, and we have bioassay 


measurements for about 20 to 25 individuals. 


And these bioassay measurements include -- they 


include -- from the job descriptions, they 


include the people that we would expect to be 


at the highest exposure potential. For 


instance, chemical operators. And they also 


include people who we would expect to be at 


lower exposure potential, like supervisors. 


Okay. The next concern was how NIOSH treated 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

154 

particle size. The petitioner felt that we 


were using an inappropriate particle size. 


Our evaluation of this issue -- five 


micrometers, which is what we use, is the 


default particle size recommended by the latest 


lung model issued by the International 


Commission on Radiological Protection, the 


ICRP. Their latest model is ICRP-66, and we 


use the default model -- the default particle 


size that they recommend. However, it's 


important to note that even if we chose a 


different particle size -- one micron, for 


instance -- it would result in a higher 


calculated internal dose by about 15 percent, 


but it's not infinite. So I guess what I'm 


getting at here is that this is more an issue 


that speaks to dose reconstruction or Technical 


Basis Documents rather than SEC. This is a 


number that, you know, we can discuss, we can 


go back and forth on, but at the end of the day 


it can be quantified. 


Okay, the inhalation-to-ingestion pathway. The 


concern that the petitioner expressed was that 


material that is breathed in -- so if you think 


about working in a dusty environment and you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

155 

breathe in dust that contains some level of 


uranium -- it's initially inhaled. But then 


the lungs start to clear that material in 


phlegm, and some of that is -- is ingested. 


It's transferred to the gastrointestinal tract 


and it's -- and it's ingested. And the 


petitioner was concerned that we hadn't 


considered that. 


In fact, ICRP-66 does include this pathway, so 


we are considering this. And we are also 


considering direct ingestion. Dust might 


settle out on your hands and you rub your mouth 


and swallow that. That's direct ingestion. We 


also are considering that, as well. 


All right, uranium daughters. The petition 


expressed the concern that we were not 


considering the beta-emitting daughters of 


uranium; that is the thorium-234 and 


protactinium-234(m). In fact, our revision of 


the site profile does address this progeny's 


in-growth and those doses from those 


radionuclides are considered. 


Okay, so NIOSH's evaluation report. When a 


petition is qualified, NIOSH is obligated to 


consider the bases in the petition and then 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

156 

issue an evaluation report that details our 


findings on this. And we issued the evaluation 


report for the Blockson petition on September 


1st of this year. 


And I would also like to talk a little bit 


about dose reconstructions, and our legal 


representative wanted me to stress that on the 


back table there are some example -- 


hypothetical dose reconstructions. Those are 


not meant to resemble in any way any 


individual's real dose reconstruction. These 


are examples that -- that we came up with just 


to demonstrate to the Board how we do dose 


reconstructions. So don't wonder if -- if one 


of the examples is yours. It's not, I assure 


you. And as I mentioned, those are on the -- 


on the back table for -- for your review. 


We have three dose reconstructions -- 


hypothetical dose reconstructions that we've 


put in the back. I think one is for a skin 


cancer, one is for a lung cancer, one is for a 


colon cancer. We felt that this was perhaps 


representative of the types of dose 


reconstructions that we are doing at the 


Blockson site. And let me go into a little bit 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

157 

more detail about how we are doing those. 


First of all, the external dose. Recall that I 


told you that we don't have external dosimetry, 


so what we have done -- based on the production 


numbers, we know how much uranium was produced 


at Blockson. We have bounded the external dose 


that might be expected in this type of 


activity. First of all, we have assumed that a 


worker is working in proximity to -- to aged 


yellowcake. 


Now let me tell you why that's important. 


Fresh yellowcake gives off a very minimal 


amount of radiation, so the external dose from 


fresh yellowcake is pretty minimal. As that 


material gets older, the daughters grow in and 


the dose rate goes up. So if you think for a 


minute about the process at Blockson, Blockson 


was producing fresh yellowcake, and as it was 


produced it was drummed and shipped off-site. 


So really when the workers were in close 


proximity, doing that hands-on work with the 


yellowcake, it was young, freshly-produced 


yellowcake. The external dose from that 


yellowcake would have been minimal. However, 


to be claimant favorable, to bound the external 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

158 

doses, we assume that it was aged and that the 


workers spent -- Tom Tomes, my colleague, is 


here to help me out -- I think it was eight 


hours a day one day a week, and this is based 


on the production numbers, that was the 


geometric mean that we assumed. We also -- we 


assigned a distribution here, and the high 


value -- Tom, help me out -- was... 


MR. TOMES: Forty hours per week. 


 DR. ULSH: -- 40 hours per week, standing one 


foot from a drum of yellowcake. 


Now, we're not representing that this is 


realistic of what the workers might have been 


exposed to, but we're representing that this is 


a bounding estimate of the external dose of 


what the workers might have been exposed to. 


And then for the internal dose, those are based 


on those 122 bioassay measurements that we have 


for the 25 workers. We generate a coworker 


distribution that we use to estimate internal 


dose for the people who worked in Building 55. 


And finally radon. We are considering radon, 


and I know it's a topic of concern because we 


have used radon concentrations -- first of all, 


there are no measured concentrations of radon 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

159 

during the operational period for Blockson. If 


there were, we would have used them. However, 


(unintelligible) concentrations from facilities 


like Blockson in Florida. 


Now, you might ask -- logically -- what does a 


facility in Florida have anything to do -- how 


can we apply those data across sites. Well, 


remember I told you that the material that 


Blockson was working with, where it came from. 


It came from Florida. And so the mills that 


were considered in Florida used the same 


material that the Blockson site used, and the 


operations were similar. So we have some 


confidence that the radon estimates that we 


have used are applicable to the Blockson site. 


And also recall that in the Blockson operation 


the material that generated the radon didn't 


even go to Building 55. However, NIOSH 


couldn't say that, when that material was 


shipped to other places on the Blockson site, 


some of that material could have dispersed into 


Building 55. So we simply conducted a bounding 


estimate. We said well, it can't be higher 


than if all that radon-generating material was 


in Building 55 itself. So that's, in effect, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

160 

what we assumed. All that material goes into 


55, generates radon, and that -- that's how we 


calculated the radon dose that -- that we 


applied in our dose reconstructions. 


Okay, let me give you the status on the 


Blockson claims. Now, there is always some 


confusion when we present numbers like this 


because the Department of Labor has a certain 


set of numbers and that reflects all of the 


claims that are submitted to the Department of 


Labor. Now a subset of those are referred to 


NIOSH for dose reconstruction, and those are 


the ones that had qualified employment or a 


qualified condition, so don't expect that 


you'll hear the same numbers from the 


Department of Labor that you'll hear from us. 


I'm only speaking of the ones that -- that DOL, 


Department of Labor, has referred to us for 


dose reconstruction, and there are 113 of those 


cases that have been sent to us. We have 


completed dose reconstructions and returned 


them back to DOL -- 93 of those. 


Tom, I think -- we talked on the way up here, 


of the remainder of the 93, we've completed 


them and they're in the claimants' hands; is 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

161 

that correct? 


MR. TOMES: Except for one. 


 DR. ULSH: Except for one. So that's the 


difference that you see there. 


Okay. As is typical in the SEC process, we 


have a two-pronged test. Those of us around 


the table have seen this before. The first 


question that NIOSH is -- has to ask is, number 


one, is it feasible for NIOSH to estimate the 


level of radiation doses that people in this 


class might have been exposed to with 


sufficient accuracy. And if the answer to that 


question is yes (sic), then we are then 


obligated to go on and consider is there a 


reasonable likelihood that the health of the 


people in this class could have been 


endangered. But you only have to go to number 


two if the answer to number one is yes (sic). 


 The conclusion of our evaluation is that the 


information that we have available -- the 


process records, the urinalysis data, the 


recollections of the workers that we talked to 


and information that we have on the source term 


-- are sufficient for us to do dose 


reconstructions of sufficient accuracy. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

162 

Okay, so here are the types of -- the types of 


exposure that we consider in a dose 


reconstruction, and we have concluded that we 


can do dose reconstructions of sufficient 


accuracy on the internal side, material that 


gets inside your body through ingestion or 


inhalation, for uranium and its daughters and 


for radon. And we have also concluded that we 


can estimate the external doses, both from the 


beta/gamma that the workers might have been 


exposed to and occupational medical X-ray. 


So here's the -- I think it's the last slide -- 


that summarizes our position. And that is that 


for the time period in question, January 1st, 


1951 through the end of 1962, we have concluded 


that it is feasible for us to do dose 


reconstructions of sufficient accuracy. 


Okay, that is the end of my presentation. I'd 


be happy to entertain questions. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Before we go to the question 


period, we'll have an opportunity to hear from 


the petitioners. 


Oh, Mr. Kellogg's representative is here, go 


ahead. 


 MR. LAPINE: Yes, representing Mr. Kellogg -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

163 

thank you, Mr. Ulsh, thank you, ladies and 


gentlemen of the Board. As part of my 


presentation in response to this, I want to 


address two factors. Number one is the general 


flawed nature of much of this. This is based 


off of interviews of five workers -- five. And 


statements are made that we know how much was 


produced at Blockson. No, you don't. You're 


basing this off of a maximum that 50,000 pounds 


were produced a year and that's what the 


contract said. Other reports, based -- such as 


the one that USA Today based their report off 


of indicate that 2 million pounds came out of 


there during that two years. These are all 


based off of completely unsubstantiated claims. 


That being said, I look forward to the moment, 


and I wish each and every worker and their 


family had the opportunity to speak. It's easy 


to get lost in the dose reconstructions and 


forget that these have impacted just about 


every single family of individuals who worked 


there. Every single one has suffered. It's 


that simple. 


As part of this, I would like to defer briefly 


to Ms. Marcoski and Mr. Stephan. Ms. Marcoski 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

164 

will address some weaknesses in the dose 


reconstruction and Mr. Stephan will suggest a 


plan for future reference. Thank you, ladies 


and gentlemen. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Could I get your name, 


please? 


 MR. LAPINE: Michael Lapine, L-a-p-i-n-e. 


Thank you. 


MS. MARCOSKI: I guess I'll -- I'll work 


backwards from some comments that I scribbled 


down. With the external dosage with beta/gamma 


rays, there was no dosimetry badging. You're 


making this on a assumption of a Florida 


phosphate-producing plant that has totally 


different geographic situation. It's outdoor 


Florida. Their windows are probably open. 


Radon, you know, can be dispersed when it's 


open to air. Blockson, you're looking at a 


place that functions in winter months where 


you're looking at more closed-in areas, so I 


would dispute that having adequate external 


dosing. 


When you do such a large feas-- feasibility of 


dose reconstruction, there has to be some 


percentage of error. I know you've worked very 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

165 

hard on this and put together things to the 


best of your ability. But when you have so 


many assumptions, what type of percentage of 


error are we looking at? Is it ten percent? 


It goes with mo-- most medical -- mathematical 


calculations and basic statistics. 


Back to the phosphate rock, I was trying to 


make the analogy of an egg yesterday. I don't 


think you could just defer to the operations 


that were in Building 55 alone. A certain 


percentage of that phosphate rock that was 


brought from the Florida facility, even though 


not all of the chemical processes occurred in 


Building 55, it still -- part of it had to 


occur so that uranium could be extracted for 


atomic weapons. I don't believe you could just 


segregate out Building 55 alone and look at 


that part. 


I believe higher calculation can be given to 


radon and radon exposure. In talking to Mr. 


Miller yesterday, a 95th percentile has been 


given to most of this in your calculations. 


understand the radon was given at the 50th 


percentile, and I'm not sure why that 


calculation was given such a low rating based 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

166 

on all the other mathematical formulas were 


given the 95th percentile. And it does make a 


difference in the lung cases. There's a direct 


correlation of radon and lung cancer. 


I guess I did (unintelligible) some other 


situations with petitioning. With Allied 


Health there was a SEC petition that looked 


like it was passing because they didn't have 


adequate monitoring data. I guess I would 


question some of the assumptions and wondering 


if they are adequate based on such a small 


representative of five workers and there were 


113. I do have a seniority list. The plant 


only employed somewhere between 200 and 300 


people. That isn't a large plant. 


I guess that's all unless there are any other 


comments. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 MR. LAPINE: Thank you, Ms. Marcoski, and next 


I am going to ask Mr. Robert Stephan, the 


regional director for Senator Obama's office, 


to address the Board. 


 MR. STEPHAN: That's Robert, last name is S-te-p-h-a-n. Thank you guys for the opportunity 


to let the Senator speak this morning. He 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

167 

wanted me to follow up on a few of the points 


that he made in his speech. Number one was the 


request to postpone this vote until February. 


He wanted to see if you guys were willing to do 


that. I don't know if that is an answer you 


can give today or not. 


The other -- the other issue is that he -- he 


wants to make sure that specifically it is on 


the record that he requested that SC&A be 


referred this issue so that they can, you know, 


just take another look and give a second 


opinion on the Blockson process, which we think 


is reasonable and I think is in line with your, 


you know, prior activity to -- to sometimes go 


slow if need be and make sure you get it right. 


The third issue is that I want to make sure 


that we get the class definition right. NIOSH 


was very generous this week and they gave a 


briefing to our office, and at that time and in 


subsequent e-mails with the NIOSH staff, it's 


our understanding that all employees at 


Blockson are covered in the petition. However, 


the -- the petition as it is written in the 


evaluation report, and as it was presented 


earlier -- I think we have a problem of words. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

168 

The petition says the Pilot building, Pilot 


facility and Building 55, and the way many 


people read that, including our office, is that 


that does not include all the workers. So I'm 


just wondering if we could touch base on that. 


I know we talked this week and -- and Mr. 


Elliott, and -- and it was a little bit 


different in our discussion and the follow-up 


and then what is on there, so I'm just 


wondering, maybe you guys can clarify that for 


us. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. STEPHAN: Okay. Thank you. And then the 


last point is that it -- it is -- in the 


Senator's comments, which I'm not sure that he 


made totally clear, the policy that he was 


requesting be reviewed is the policy of using 


coworker data. We know that's a big issue. We 


know it's very difficult, you know, for you 


guys to move forward if you don't consider 


coworker data. But from the Senator's point of 


view, he -- he -- he is asking, in a big 


picture sense, not just at Blockson, that the 


Blockson coworker data be reviewed, but that 


the policy of using coworker data throughout 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

169 

the entire implementation of the Act is 


reviewed. So we just want to make sure we have 


that on the record. And certainly if you guys 


are willing to commit now to getting SC&A 


involved, that would be good news that we can 


report back to the Senator. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Robert. We can open 


the floor -- any other petitioners to speak, on 


the phone or here? 


 MS. PINCHETTI: Yeah, this is Kathy Pinchetti. 


I'm a petitioner for number 58 -- am I getting 


feedback? 


 DR. WADE: Could I ask you -- just let me 


interrupt for a minute. Could you just speak 


right into the -- the -- the handset and speak 


as loud as you can for us, please. 


 MS. PINCHETTI: Okay. Is that better? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Repeat your name, please. 


 MS. PINCHETTI: Kathy Pinchetti, P-i-n-c-h-e-tt-i. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MS. PINCHETTI: I am the daughter of William 


Bell, who's there in the audience with my 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

170 

sister. And initially I filed the SEC 


specifically with my father in mind because 


that was the only information I had was his 


direct report. And then it became included to 


include all the workers in Building 55. And it 


originally came out of my filing with EEOIC and 


that application was denied because he didn't 


have one of the specified cancers. I also 


applied with RECA, Radiation Exposure 


Compensation Act. They also denied it because 


they felt that, you know, he didn't meet one of 


the qualifying illnesses. But then there was 


information on the internet, which is where I 


got a lot of my information on how to go about 


applying for him, and it said that there's no 


requirement that the members of the class even 


have yet to be diagnosed with cancer. So then 


I started the SEC petition and then after I 


submitted it, then it was merged with another 


one that I think included people other than 


those that were specifically identified as 


being maybe those 25 workers that had the 


urinalysis done, that showed, you know, how 


they were sickened. But my father was actually 


in a VA hospital for three weeks during the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

171 

time he was working in Building 55 and he had 


symptoms of vomiting, he lost 35 pounds in a 


month. He had a rash on his hands, all sorts 


of problems, and they were giving him cancer 


treatments. I believe it was Compamine, that's 


a cancer-treating drug; also atropine, which is 


for nerve poisoning or nerve agents and 


poisoning, and also phenobarbital, and that's 


pretty heavy-duty medication. So he was really 


sick and I think -- all in all I think he was 


off work maybe six weeks, and so that was my 


motivation for filing the application. 


I am impressed with the summary and just in 


general how people are able to reconstruct 


things like crash sites where you don't have to 


actually have information from back then. I 


don't think in the '50s they -- they were very 


sophisticated in how they monitored things or ­

- or what sort of rules they would -- they 


would implement, but my dad worked more than 40 


hours a week. There were a lot of times he 


worked double shifts and I think that was 


pretty typical of the bunch that was in 


Building 55. I mean if there was only like 16 


to 25 people that were allowed in there, and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

172 

they had to cover three shifts, there was a lot 


of doubles. So I don't know if he was alone in 


that, but I know it for a fact that he always 


worked a lot of doubles, so his exposure might 


have been even higher. 


What else did I want to say? Other than about 


particle size or daughters or any of that stuff 


about the exposure, but I think -- I do believe 


that that does need to be clarified, who is 


covered by this petition. Is it just the 16 to 


25 people in Building 55 or anybody that was 


employed by Blockson during that ten-year 


period? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much, 


Kathleen. 


 MS. PINCHETTI: All right. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: On behalf of the petitioners? 


I guess it'll be up to the petitioners. I'll 


allow it if it's okay with the petitioners. 


think she's speaking on behalf of the 


claimants. Yes. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Okay. Thank you. I don't know 


if you'll be able to (unintelligible) 


microphone. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Give us your name. 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

173

 MS. PIERCE: My name is Lois Pierce. My father 


was Rudolph Dernalz*. He was probably the 


number fifth in play on a list for Blockson 


Chemical. He had about 37 years there. Me and 


my sisters had applied for this compensation 


and we recently got a second dose 


reconstruction. And the first one was -- that 


was sent was like October 2003. They had 


listed two cancers, which we had talked about 


through papers we had from the doctors that we 


could get our hands on. When the second of the 


recent dose reconstruction came through, 


November 9th of this year, it eliminated one of 


the cancers. So my -- we are doubtful why 


wasn't all the information forwarded. It was 


both by NIOSH and one of the cancers is listed 


on the Act of 2000, the year 2000, the 


Occupational Illness Program put out by the 


Department of Energy, and why it was changed, 


we have no idea. So we feel that the dose 


reconstruction is not true to what it should be 


because they eliminated a cancer. They only 


put down one cancer and I have paperwork where 


it was two back in 2003. 


My dad worked with the chemists, and he was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

174 

called out during the night. He was in 


Building 55. My brother-in-law even signed a 


paper that was like an affidavit or something 


saying he knew my dad was in Building 55. He 


wore goggles and gloves, we knew that. And all 


his work clothes came home, which my mom 


washed, and he did shower -- that was the only 


building with a shower was Building 55. We 


knew there was security. My father didn't talk 


about what he did. He was very respectful of 


his bosses because he cared a lot about them 


and being one of the first employees at 


Blockson and number five on a list of, you 


know, how many, I assume he's probably in that 


25 urinalysis but I'm not sure. 


Now my sister did tell me there was a thing 


about some paperwork we got where they said 


they did X-rays of their chests. We never 


remembered our dad going for an X-ray of his 


chest, and he would have done that, I assume, 


away from Blockson because I don't think they 


had the facility to do anything like that. 


But that's what I wanted to say to you. 
I 


think they need to go back -- with our claim, I 


don't know what they did with others, but 2003 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

175 

it was two cancers; now it's one, and it's the 


same department, NIOSH, and why they changed 


it, I have no idea. And I assume I have to 


make a phone call to somebody. 


 DR. ZIEMER: There are NIOSH people here that 


will help you address this particular case yet 


while you're here, so -- 


 MS. PIERCE: Okay, thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. We can open 


the floor for questions, and I'd like to start. 


I'd like to get some clarity on a couple of 


items. I think that, Brant, you talked about 


the inventory there and I -- I think then we 


heard from Michael about -- I think it was USA 


Today story that perhaps had a different -- and 


-- and I'm wondering if we know the source of 


the USA Today's information versus NIOSH's -- 


clearly like an order of magnitude. 


 Now you realize that many of us at this table 


tend not to trust what we read in the media all 


the time, although sometimes they have better 


sources of information than we do. So do -- do 


you have some notion that would help us clarify 


that issue of that inventory? It seems to be 


pretty wide apart. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

176

 MR. LAPINE: (Off microphone) I don't know the 


source of that article. I know that 


(unintelligible) USA Today report was the 


catalyst that (unintelligible) brought to me 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

 MR. LAPINE: -- (unintelligible) --

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. LAPINE: -- in that (unintelligible) 

Blockson (unintelligible) report. It did 


suggest (unintelligible) reports of 


(unintelligible) orders and the like. It was 


estimating 2 million were taken out in the two 


years -- or the ten years -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 MR. LAPINE: -- (unintelligible) the uranium 


extracted. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Might be helpful if we could track 


that down, or at least get some clarity. 


 MS. MUNN: I'd like to know the date of that 


USA Today. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and maybe we can find out 


when that report was and track it down. But 


let's hear from Dan first. 


 DR. MCKEEL: The USA Today series was reported 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

177 

by Peter Eisler, that's E-i-s-l-e-r, and my 


recollection of that series -- I'm trying to 


think of the year, I'm sor-- I don't want to 


say something that's wrong. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Do you have any idea, Dan, what 


his source of information was? 


 DR. MCKEEL: Well, he -- he compiled -- I 


remember in the lead to that series -- he said 


100,000 primary documents which he put into a 


database. And about two years ago actually I 


contacted USA Today to see if he was -- would 


be willing to share any of that information. 


Now Peter -- I saw a story from him a few 


months ago. Actually I saw a story from him 


about the Hostettler subcommittee hearings, so 


he's still active, alive, well, and I would 


imagine that database has perhaps grown. But 


that's a major resource for this program. I 


don't know, I -- I understood that they went to 


-- in that story they said they went to 


national records, so they did a data -- a 


massive data capture effort from the same kind 


of sources that NIOSH and all of us have 


available and -- you know, but specifically for 


Blockson where they came up with that large 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

178 

number. But there may be documentation like 


that that could be sought and retrieved. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 DR. MCKEEL: Yes, sir. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Brant, do you or Larry have any 


notion or can you help us understand that 


discrepancy? 


MR. TOMES: I'm Tom Tomes from NIOSH. We do 


have some source of good records for production 


quantities at Blockson, and they were in August 


through December of 1955. We located some 


monthly reports of production out of the AEC 


offices, and they give details of monthly 


reports that was produced every -- every single 


month that month (sic), and a total of the -- 


the total production from Blockson had produced 


through December, 1955 from the start of the 


contract, and that is in the Technical Basis 


Document. However, we don't have any -- any 


specific details after 1955. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 DR. ULSH: Except -- I don't know -- am I on? 


Okay. We do have where the contract was 


amended to place a limit on the production. 


think that occurred in 1958, and the limit was 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

179 

-- 58,000 pounds per year? 


UNIDENTIFIED: Fifty thousand. 


 DR. ULSH: Fifty thousand, 50,000 pounds per 


year. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. I'd like to -- oh, 


Larry, you have an additional comment on this? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I think it's very easy to get 


confused when we start talking about numbers. 


We would need to see the references that -- 


that are being used here. What we do know 


about Blockson is that they were in a 


commercial process of -- of working up 


limestone or phosphate and rock, and the AEC 


come to them and said you're doing this 


commercial base process. We would like to take 


a side stream off of that to understand and 


determine whether or not uranium can be 


captured in this side stream process. So I 


don't know if this is the case, but it could be 


that the 200,000 pounds per year may be the 


incoming stone that was being processed. We'd 


have to look at that. But what we do know is 


what you've just heard Tom Tomes say. The 


contractual language that we have been given in 


the documentation from the Department of Energy 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

180 

and the AEC was that they were seeking 50,000 


pounds, total, over the course of the contract 


-- of uranium. So but -- pardon me? Per year, 


per year. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let me also ask a somewhat related 


question and I -- it has to do with the issue 


of Building 55 and the language as to what 


defines the -- the cohort. What do we know 


about the restrictions on who could go into 


Building 55 and whether other people on the 


site in other operations -- one of the 


petitioners said he thought -- he was told 


everyone was covered and -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, this -- if your question 


goes to coverage --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- our understanding of the -- 


the facility definition for coverage is 


Building 55 or the -- and the Pilot plant. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Or anyone who had access to that 


building? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Anyone who worked at Blockson 


Chemical -- and my understanding -- and Pete 


Turcic's here, he might want to opine about how 


DOL determines eligibility, but it's our 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

181 

understanding at NIOSH that anybody who worked 


at Blockson Chemical Company can file a claim. 


Their eligibility's determined on did they work 


there, not whether they worked in 55 or the 


Pilot plant --


 DR. ZIEMER: That worked there. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- but did they work at Blockson, 


and did they come up with a cancer. If the 


answer to both of those questions is yes, they 


are deemed an eligible claimant and sent to us 


for dose reconstruction. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So the Building 55 issue doesn't 


arise as far as Labor's concerned. Is that 

what I'm hearing? 

 MR. TURCIC: That's correct, Paul. It's --

when -- you know, when we look at these things, 


you know, it starts out as an empirical -- 


looking at what data is available. Early on in 


the program we found out that there are no 


records that exist that can put people, you 


know, in the mainstream versus Building 55, so 


we put it -- you know, we have a bulletin -- 


basically we made the policy determination that 


if -- if we confirm employment at Blockston 


(sic) Chemical, the facility is the entire 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

182 

facility. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So even though it sounds, 


from what some of the petitioners even said, 


that there was a sort of a restricted area, you 


can't determine who actually was kept out or 


allowed in there. 


 MR. TURCIC: That's correct, and that's why, 


you know, if that language gets in, though -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. TURCIC: -- that, you know, causes 


confusion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. So is it important that 


the class definition include the mention of 


Building 55? Apparently not. 


Okay, thank you. That's helpful. I think I 


had one other question. Let me defer -- I 


think Dr. Melius is waiting patiently. 


 DR. MELIUS: I always defer to the Chair, I 


don't --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. MELIUS: My -- my -- I have one question to 


start with and that's the -- the issue that was 


brought up by the Senator regarding whether or 


not there'd been any outreach activities for 


this site. I guess I was a little surprised to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 -- 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

183 

hear that in the five or six years of the 


program that there had not been any outreach 


activities or any meetings held here and I 


guess I'd like clarification on that. I... 


 DR. ULSH: Dr. Melius, I can tell you that the 


one -- one meeting that I attended was a DOL 


meeting. Pete, wasn't that for residual 


contamination? I think that was the subject of 


 MR. TURCIC: Early -- early on when the program 


first started, we did some 85 town hall 


meetings and we were in Joliet then, and then 


there was a residual contamination outreach, 


also. So there's at least two that I'm aware 


of. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, but -- but none specifically 


by NIOSH in terms of developing their Technical 


Basis Documents and regarding -- and regarding 


this Special Exposure Cohort petition? 


 DR. ULSH: You're correct, Dr. Melius, that we 


didn't have an official TBD rollout outreach 


meeting conducted by NIOSH with Blockson. We 


did not. What we did have was the interviews 


with the former workers that informed the SEC 


petition, but there was no official NIOSH 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

184 

outreach meeting related to the TBD. 


 DR. MELIUS: And so that -- that was the 


interview with the five workers. Correct? 


 DR. ULSH: That's correct, Dr. Melius. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I remember now my other question. 


The -- the phosphate rock was already being 


used, as I understand it, by Blockson for other 


chemical extractions or -- 


 DR. ULSH: That is correct, Dr. Ziemer. The 


primary product of the Blockson site was 


technical phosphates. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. And one of the petitioners 


asked the question about the assignment of -- 


of radon exposures. 


 DR. ULSH: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And I'm unclear now -- if you have 


a -- if you have a claimant -- well, of course 


if there's an SEC, it becomes a sort of a moot 


point, except you might have non-- you may have 


some cancers which are in a category not 


covered by the SEC. If such a claimant came, 


what do we do about, for example, radon 


exposure assignments? Are -- you can -- you 


said you can do medical? 


 DR. ULSH: Well, it's -- it's NIOSH's position 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

185 

that we can reconstruct all the -- all of the 


doses, and it's really not a moot point -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 


 DR. ULSH: -- in terms of if the -- if the 


Board chose to recommend an SEC class -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: All right, but if -- if that were 


the case, but -- all right, take -- take a 


regular -- assume there's no SEC, then -- 


 DR. ULSH: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- what do -- what do we do about 


the radon part for any individual? 


 DR. ULSH: That is included in all the dose 


reconstructions that we do at Blockson, based 


on the radon values that were measured in 


similar facilities using similar source 


material, and that is included in the dose 


reconstruction --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. ULSH: -- for -- for lung cancers. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Are these radon levels 


simply based on buildings of similar size that 


were handling Florida phosphates or -- what's 


the basis for the radon calculation. 


 DR. ULSH: I'm going to let Tom answer that 


one. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

186 

MR. TOMES: There was a Technical Information 


Bulletin produced by ORAU that discussed the 


exposures from radon -- radium and radon in 


phosphate facilities, and that was an 


evaluation that included multiple results of 


different studies published by Florida and 


other studies, and it's a compilation of 


various results -- indoor measurements of 


chemical processing plants (unintelligible) 


general data used, and the -- and the 


recommendations from that OTIB was what we 


adopted for the operational period at Blockson. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other comments or 


questions? 


PETITIONER: I have one question. This is 


Petitioner (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: And the petitioner... 


PETITIONER: -- 58. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Speak -- speak in to the -- 


PETITIONER: Okay. Kathy Pinchetti. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Katherine. 


 MS. PINCHETTI: Okay. You had said that when 


you were clarifying the definition, you defined 


it as people who worked there and come up with 


a cancer, so that sounds kind of like the EEOIC 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

187 

requirement that you have one of the named 


cancers in order to qualify for compensation. 


But under SEC it says a petition is prepared 


representing a class of employees whose members 


have or have not filed claims with Department 


of Labor under the Act. There's no requirement 


that the members of the class even have yet to 


be diagnosed with a cancer. I just wanted to 


clarify if the people that qualify for 


compensation still have to have one of the 


identified cancers. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, and Larry Elliott will speak 


to that, but there are some so-called 


presumptive cancers that would be a condition 


of the compensation. Larry. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: The Special Exposure Cohort and 


the classes that are represented in the Special 


Exposure Cohort represent all workers who find 


themselves having time spent in that class 


definition. If they -- whether they have 


cancer or not. If they have cancer, then it -- 


if the cancer is one of 22, then they are 


presumed -- the cancer's presumed to have been 


caused by their exposure during that time frame 


at that particular work facility. So yes, you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

188 

are correct, ma'am. The class would represent 


those individuals who have and those who do not 


have cancer at this point in time, if there was 


a class to be added. NIOSH is --


 DR. ZIEMER: But to compensate, they have to 


have the cancer. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, to be compensated, you have 


to, unfortunately, have acquired cancer. Let 


me -- let me make sure that there's -- I want 


to make a point of clarification here. 


NIOSH is here today presenting a report on an 


evaluation of this petition, stating that we 


feel we have the ability to reconstruct dose 


for the various types of radiation exposure 


that were encountered by the workers at 


Blockson Chemical. If the Board were to say, 


or Board were to take an action to recommend 


that a class be established for this particular 


facility, then it's absolutely correct that the 


definition needs to be carefully considered. 


Our definition for this class, as we -- as 


Brant has presented it this afternoon, under 


the context that we feel we can reconstruct 


dose, includes all people who worked at 


Blockson Chemical for those years. But if you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

189 

go forward with a recommendation to add a 


class, what I think Mr. Turcic was alluding to 


earlier is you don't want to include Building 


55 and the Pilot plant in that class definition 


for recommendation. You only want to say 


Blockson Chemical. If you -- if you narrow it 


just to Building 55 and Pilot plant, which we 


have done saying we can reconstruct all dose, 


because that's the covered facility here, if 


you narrow it for a recommendation to add a 


class and you include those words, Building 55 


and the Pilot plant, you've also narrowed the 


eligibility. Okay? I just want to make sure 


that that's on the record. I think that goes 


to Mr. Stephan's question and Senator Obama's 


concern. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Larry. That's helpful. 


Also could -- Larry, could -- or maybe Brant 


can tell me, on the issue of the amount of 


inventory that was processed, will that -- if ­

- if in fact the -- the greater number were the 


one, does that have any impact on your ability 


to reconstruct dose? It doesn't appear to me 


that it would, but... 


MR. TOMES: I believe we'd have to take another 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

190 

look at the numbers, what we'd have to do, you 


know, far -- far as the -- and -- and to reevaluate it. I --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, to --


MR. TOMES: -- (unintelligible) source term 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- what extent does the knowledge 


of that inventory play into the -- into the 


reconstruction, as you see it now? 


MR. TOMES: Well, we just need to look at -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is that --


MR. TOMES: Well, ba-- basically what we're 


looking at right now is producing a sma-- a few 


num-- a several drums, you know, of -- of 


material, and -- and we just have to consider 


is our evaluation satisfactory for more -- 


bigger source term and -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: So the source term does enter into 


the calculation, so that would be an important 


piece of information. 


 DR. ULSH: Dr. Ziemer, perhaps I could add to 


that. It probably would not affect the way 


that we calculate internal doses because that's 


based on the urinalyses. But where it might 


have an impact would be on the way that we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

191 

calculate external doses. Then it would be a 


scaling factor. If we find out that it's four 


times what we've estimated, then we -- we would 


perhaps, I don't know -- I'm going a little 


further than I should, perhaps -- that -- that 


might have --


 DR. ZIEMER: I understand what you're saying. 


 DR. ULSH: Okay, then I'll stop. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Other comments or 


questions? 


 DR. WADE: Mr. Stephan has. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Mr. Stephan has an additional 


comment. 


 MR. STEPHAN: Thank you. I want to thank you, 


Mr. Elliott, for the clarification. So I think 


we are clear now for the workers. What is not 


happening today is there will not be a vote on 


SEC petition for Blockson for only Building 55 


and the Pilot facility; that that is not 


happening here today. Is that correct? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Actually the Board hasn't 


determined that there will be a vote or not be 


a vote. 


 MR. STEPHAN: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: All that he has done is clarify 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

192 

what happens --


 MR. STEPHAN: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- in each case. 


 MR. STEPHAN: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That is, if -- if the NIOSH 


recommendation, which says we can reconstruct 


dose and therefore we don't need an SEC -- is 


what it says --


 MR. STEPHAN: Uh-huh, okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- if -- if that were followed, 


then the -- the point about Building 55 is 


basically a moot point. 


 MR. STEPHAN: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: If we were to recommend that there 


be an SEC --


 MR. STEPHAN: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- then it covers anyone at 


Blockson and you don't have to specify Building 


55. 


 MR. STEPHAN: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That would be my understanding of 


it. 


 MR. STEPHAN: Okay. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Let me say it one more time a 


different way. If we were coming to you today 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

193 

and presenting a recommendation to add a class, 


we would not have presented the class 


definition that you see today. We would have 


presented a class definition that said all 


employees who worked at Blo-- who were 


monitored, or should have been monitored, at 


Blockson Chemical. We would not have mentioned 


Building 55 or the Pilot. 


 DR. ZIEMER: This definition grew out of the 


original petition, I presume, rather than -- 


'cause you would have -- you would have amended 


it somewhere along the line. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: The definition that we presented 


to you today in our evaluation for this 


particular petition speaks to all workers who 


came to Blockson to work. Okay? And it speaks 


to the covered part of that facility, and we're 


saying we feel we can reconstruct dose. 


If we were coming to you and saying we don't 


think we can reconstruct all the dose, we would 


have presented to you a -- a different 


definition of the class that would not have 


spoken to Building 55 or the Pilot plant. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 MR. STEPHAN: Thank you, Mr. Elliott. The --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

194 

the main point that I wanted to underscore, 


which was brought up about the worker outreach 


meeting, the -- the worker outreach meeting 


that Senator Obama is looking for for Blockson 


is -- is a worker outreach meeting similar to 


what I believe NIOSH did -- I know Stu was 


there and Laurie Ishak, I believe; numerous 


NIOSH staff, is that right? -- when they came 


and did a worker outreach meeting for General 


Steel Industries in the southern part of the 


state, and Dow Chemical. Those were all 


affidavits on the record, and so I'm just 


trying to make sure that I'm differentiating, 


Mr. Turcic, that that is different than the 


town hall meetings. And so I think it's fair 


to say that with a decision such as this, 


interviews over the telephone with five 


workers, you know, is -- as our opinion is, 


it's not sufficient. But it goes to the issue 


of confidence. Whatever the decision is that 


comes about, we'll have more confidence, and 


you will have more confidence, in the decision 


if there is some outreach on the record, 


publicized in the media well in advance where 


people can come testify, a -- a written report 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

195 

is produced from -- from all the workers. That 


is a step we would hope would take place. 
I 


just want to differentiate between what we're 


looking for and maybe what has taken place in 


the past. And I do want to give credit to 


NIOSH for what they did on the Dow and the GSI 


site. That was very helpful. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Larry. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: We can certainly do a worker 


outreach meeting at Blockson and enter-- and 


entertain comments and thoughts about the site 


profile that we have developed. We can present 


dose reconstruction examples and explain how we 


do dose reconstruction. But we -- we -- it's 


not that we don't want to do it. There are 


more than 300 sites covered under this program 


and unfortunately we've not been able to get 


around to all of them, and my apologies for 


that. But yes, if you want us to, we'll -- 


we'll schedule a worker outreach meeting for 


Blockson in the very, very near future. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda. 


 MS. MUNN: Perhaps the comment should be made ­

- I'm not sure that everyone who hears what's 


transpiring here understands that any 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

196 

individual who has any claim at all has been 


interviewed. Not perhaps face to face, but 


they've certainly been interviewed, more than 


one time, by telephone. Is that not correct, 


Dr. Elliott -- Mr. Elliott? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: It's Mister --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah --


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- thank you. 


 MS. MUNN: -- I'll keep trying. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I have aspirations of being a 


doctor sometime, but I don't know if I'll ever 


get out of my childhood to get there. But 


anyway, yes, you're absolutely correct and -- 


and I don't speak to that because there's a 


difficulty there with the survivors. You know, 


that -- they're put at a disadvantage through 


the interview process, but everyone who files a 


claim gets an interview at the start of the 


process. We hope to understand from that 


interview what the Energy employee's work 


experience was like, what did they encounter, 


what did they do. We use it to try to develop 


a little bit of a work history about that 


person that the health physicist who's doing 


the dose reconstruction can use. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

197 

I met with a lady yesterday afternoon who 


provided public comment, and they're concerned 


that their -- their father was a -- a 


maintenance worker who, you know, was heavily 


involved in all the maintenance activities of 


Building 55, the Pilot plant, lived there 


almost -- you know, 24/7 kind of a thing -- and 


did things in his usual routines that probably 


gave him higher exposures. We want to capture 


that kind of information if we can in an 


interview and see it applied and addressed in 


our dose reconstructions. I'm not going to 


tell you it happens like that all the time, but 


that's what we're striving for. 


So there's also a closeout interview that 


occurs once the dose reconstruction report has 


been drafted and delivered to the claimants, 


and we ask again at that point in time do you 


have any additional information that would help 


us do a better job of estimating the exposure 


for your -- for this particular individual 


worker. So yes, there are these activities, 


but I would not -- I would say that -- that 


they're a best effort, a best attempt, but 


worker outreach does afford a different type of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

198 

collection of information because it allows 


people to bounce their thoughts off of each 


other and say don't you recall what happened 


there? Oh, yeah. In a survivor situation you 


don't get that kind of a dynamic, and if you're 


interviewing the Energy employee you have that 


also lost there. You don't have that dynamic. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Jim. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I -- actually a comment, 


then a separate question, but I think we 


certainly have found such meetings to be 


useful. I think a recent one at Chapman Valve, 


which actually followed up an earlier meeting 


on the site profile -- around the time the site 


profile originally came out, but a follow-up 


meeting recently, I think with NIOSH, our 


contractor and actually the chair of our 


working group, John Poston, was there and some 


people came forward who hadn't been -- come 


forward before and were able to provide very 


significant useful information on the facility. 


So I'd strongly urge that that -- that get done 


in this case and I -- particularly given some 


of the questions that have been raised here. 


My question for -- for you, Brant, is -- if you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

199 

could explain a little bit more about the basis 


for the radon estimates. 


 DR. ULSH: Okay, sure. I actually may not be 


the best person, that might be Tom Tomes again 


-- Tom, if you could perhaps speak to that. 


 DR. WADE: Tom, could you identify yourself and 


your affiliation and... 


MR. TOMES: Tom Tomes, I'm with NIOSH. 


 DR. WADE: And then speak slowly. 


MR. TOMES: All right. You're wanting some 


clarification on how we reconstruct the radon 


doses, is that --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I'm -- I'm... 


MR. TOMES: Okay. Well, I'm not an authority 


on the Technical Information Bulletin that was 


developed. I've -- I've read it several times 


and I was not involved with developing it, so 


I'm not the best person to speak on -- on that 


particular issue. But I can summarize what's 


in it. It -- it's -- contains evaluation of 


radon studies that have been done by various 


phosphate plants --


 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 


MR. TOMES: -- and including mining, which -- 


phosphates, which was not part of the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

200 

particular process that we associated with -- 


with Blockson. And that study -- it's TIB-43 


and I -- I -- like I say, I cannot -- I cannot 


be an authority on the development of that. 


However, that does recommend various results 


and those -- the results were a recommendation 


for (unintelligible) radon to phosphate plants. 


And so we have taken that result and applied it 


to Blockson. The radon -- the results are -- 


there is a multitude of results in that 


document, various radon levels, and we applied 


the distribution to Blockson. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. Thanks for trying, but -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Just to -- just to follow up on 


that question, though, I think it's been raised 


by some of the commenters, too. How did you 


determine whether this facility was similar 


enough in size, in ventilation, to be -- for 


TIB-43 to be applicable to this facility, 


Blockson? 


MR. TOMES: Well, base -- the -- the reasoning 


behind the radon at -- that we're assigning at 


Blockson is basically not that the radon was in 


that building, because the -- the radium was 


not diverted to Building 55. So we're assuming 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

201 

that the radium -- the rad-- there was radon on 


the site, and we've taken this study and used 


the results, because we cannot say with 


confidence that radon did not migrate into that 


building from other facilities on-site. 


 DR. MELIUS: So -- so is -- is the issue of 


sort of the possibility for migration the 


reason for the assigning the 50th percentile? 


MR. TOMES: Well, the -- I -- I took the -- 


actually I took the recommendation for a best 


estimate. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, okay, clarify then -- was 


the separation of the uranium from the stream 


done prior to the uranium arriving in Building 


55? 


MR. TOMES: Yes, it was. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so there -- there's no 


phosphate in Building 55, per se. 


MR. TOMES: Right, the phosphogypsum is -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: So the only --


MR. TOMES: -- separated --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- radium -- if you're doing 


workers in Building 55 -- not under an SEC, 


just the regular dose reconstruction -- you're 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

202 

only talking about -- well, are you even 


talking about natural radium -- or natural 


radon in the building? Is that a -- is that a 


component of this? Because that -- that's 


there anyway. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I think what we're talking about 


here is ambient radon that found its way inside 


Building 55, not part of the process stream. 


It's on-site. These are huge piles -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Because of the piles of -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- huge piles of rock -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- that are being processed. 


They're sitting there all around these 


different buildings. Yes, we understand that 


Florida's buildings may have open windows where 


Illinois's buildings are typically closed in 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: And that -- that radon would have 


been there even if they weren't doing the 


uranium work, 'cause they were still doing the 


phosphate --


 MR. ELLIOTT: That's correct. That's correct. 


That's the commercial radiation exposure. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. But -- but what you're 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

203 

saying, though, is that nonetheless, we will 


add that by some means -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: We think it's --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- to this since it -- in a sense, 


it's part of the process. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- beneficial to the claimants 


that we do include this. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, my -- my problem is in both 


the example dose reconstruction and in the 


Technical Basis Document that's not well-


explained. I think it's probably back in that 


TIB-0043, whatever it is that's the -- the 


generic document for -- for that. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, we didn't -- Brant didn't 


walk you through the dose reconstruction 


examples and so perhaps that's part of the why 


it's not clearer. If we'd explained those 


individually, you might have -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Cer-- certainly it's -- it's -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- been able to --


 DR. MELIUS: -- as it's written, it's not 


clear. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Understood. Understood. 


 DR. MELIUS: So I -- but --


 MR. ELLIOTT: The studies that Tom is referring 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

204 

to are a collection of studies that come out of 


the Bureau of Mines and NIOSH has done some 


work on these -- these Florida phosphate 


facilities, and so that's where we get our data 


from. 


 DR. MELIUS: I -- I have a follow-up question, 


I -- John Mauro is here? Yeah, he just 


happened to be standing up. Is that -- is that 


TIB is one of the ones on our review list or 


not, TIB -- I think it's TIB-0043, yeah. 


DR. MAURO: The site profile review? Is that 


what you're -- I'm sorry, I (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: No, no, this is the radon -- the 


TIB on --


DR. MAURO: No, it's not. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: We checked into that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Yes, Gen Roessler. 


DR. ROESSLER: I may have one additional radon 


question, and I don't think it's been clear. 


And while we have the -- I think the person who 


brought this up in the audience, I would like a 


more specific answer on it. I think -- and I'm 


not sure who it was, was talking about the 


difference in the ventilation and the climate 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

205 

and -- and the building construction and that 


sort of thing between Florida and here in 


Illinois. And I don't -- I didn't hear anybody 


specifically say that they took that into 


consideration when they used the data from the 


Florida process and extrapolated to -- to here 


in Illinois. And I just thought while we have 


the person here I assumed when they asked the 


question, I'd like more clarification on it. 


MR. TOMES: Well, the dat-- the data that was 


used in the old TIB was indoor data, primarily. 


There may have been a few outside results 


'cause I read through all the results that was 


put in that data, and it was primarily indoor 


data. 


DR. ROESSLER: Yeah, but even so, if it's 


indoor air, if -- and we know this from homes 


with radon. If you have a lot of ventilation, 


then your levels are going to be a lot lower. 


And so I think there has to be some sort of 


consideration for the different type of 


building and -- and the ventilation and perhaps 


the way the building is constructed. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, obviously some points of 


confusion here on how that radon document was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

206 

used. But what we're talking I think about 


piles of excess or -- what would be the proper 


term -- spent phosphate that contains residual 


radium, I believe, that is emitting radon into 


the air. So presumably you have a higher 


source of radon in the vicinity of the plant 


and the plants -- the buildings are having some 


air intakes and so it's a question of -- 


DR. ROESSLER: Then it might be just the 


opposite. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, there's --


DR. ROESSLER: Yeah, I'm beginning to 


understand that --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- also data to show you don't 


have to be very far from a pretty big source of 


radon before you can't even see it again, so... 


DR. ROESSLER: Yeah, but if you're talking then 


about a Florida situation, then those levels -- 


if there was more ventilation -- inside the 


building might have been higher and it might be 


the -- what was I think a misunderstanding -- 


more claimant-friendly. Is that --


 DR. ULSH: If I could perhaps take a crack at 


this, Dr. Roessler -- I don't know, maybe I 


won't be any more successful than I have 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

207 

already, but you have to keep in mind the way 


that we applied this at Blockson. The rock --


the phosphate rock came onto the site and the 


streams were split. The part of the phosphate 


rock stream that contained the radium that 


generates the radon did not go into Building 


55. It did not. But in order to bound the 


radon doses, we treated it as if it did. So if 


you're asking if the radon estimate that we've 


provided -- is that realistic, the answer's 


probably no; it's probably way high because -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Are you assuming the phosphate is 


in the building? 


 DR. ULSH: The numbers that we used in TIB-43 


are numbers from phosphate mills in Florida 


where the phosphate material is inside the 


building. That's what I'm trying to say is 


that this is a bounding estimate and -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: That would greatly overestimate 


the radon. 


DR. ROESSLER: Thank you, that --


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ULSH: Oh, here? 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Yes. 

1 

2 -- 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

208

 DR. ULSH: Oh, you caught me. This represents 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ULSH: This represents my attempt to say 


that Blockson made fertilizer -- which they 


didn't do, that's why I didn't say it in the 


presentation -- because phosphate rock is 


frequently used in the production of 


fertilizers. However, that did not occur at 


Blockson, so that graphic is -- you caught me. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ULSH: You know, it never occurred to me 


that it resembles that. If it had, I probably 


would have picked something different, too, so 


-- no, it's supposed to be a -- 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ULSH: -- agricultural. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

209

 DR. ZIEMER: It prob-- it just goes into the 


air. That's what normally happens. 


Michael, did you have a question? 


 MR. LAPINE: Yes, I do have something to add. 


I just want to bring it back to a little bit of 


basics here and let's remember what this is all 


about. The EEOICPA was designed to help 


classes of workers who fell ill working during 


the time of the Cold War. Why do we have the 


SEC? It's for groups of people who dose 


reconstruction can't be done on an individual 


basis. With all due respect, Mr. (sic) Ulsh, 


you have estimated the engineering controls. 


You have no dust measurements. You have 


estimated the monitoring. You based that on 


five workers. You have estimated the hours 


worked at 40 hours per week. Who works 40 


hours per week, then or now? You've estimated 


the production. You have no records after 1955 


of how much was produced. You estimated radon 


exposure based on a facility in Florida? As I 


see it, you guys have one hard-core fact. It 


is the urinalysis of 25 workers. That's it. 


We have 296 claimants. What is their one 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

210 

common denominator? They all worked at 


Blockson. What's their other common 


denominator? They all fell ill. Let's bring 


it back to basics. I'd like Mr. Miller to add 


something to this, as well. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 MR. MILLER: Richard Miller from GAP. I just 


have a couple of questions, and -- and I 


appreciate that neither Tom nor Brant are all 


that familiar with OTIB-43. Who wrote OTIB-43? 


 DR. ULSH: The ORAU team wrote OTIB-43. 


 MR. MILLER: Who on ORAU wrote it? 


 DR. ULSH: I would have to get back to Ed -- 


Tom, do you have a copy of it? 


 MR. MILLER: Okay, and -- and -- and then 


behind that is who reviewed it in NIOSH that 


has familiarity with the data that went into 


it, is sort of the next question, so if someone 


could answer those to start with. 


MR. TOMES: I have the list of the subject 


experts here, on the -- on the document -- Gary 


Dare, Roger Gard and Michaeline Rodriguez, and 


I was not the reviewer of this in OCAS so I can 


-- I cannot answer that question. 


 MR. MILLER: You don't -- nobody knows who the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

211 

reviewer of this was? In other words, if this 


is a NIOSH document that is owned by the 


agency, who is the owner on -- on this? The 


document shows that it's signed by Elise 


Thomas, Kate Kimpan and Jim Neton. Now who 


actually did the review and owns it? 'Cause we 


need to hear from NIOSH on TIB-43 'cause I 


think this is really at the crux of a lot of 


the questions that we're grap-- grappling with 


here. Does -- can anyone answer that? Who 


owns this document in NIOSH? Who is the person 


who says Jim Neton, put your John Hancock on 


it? 


 DR. ZIEMER: We may have to track that down. 


Did you have a comment, Richard? 


 MR. MILLER: Yeah, I mean I -- this -- this 


gets at it, though, because -- and I appreciate 


the difficulty you're facing presenting 


something that you don't have intimate 


familiarity with. 


 The first question I guess I have is when I 


looked at TIB-43, TIB-43 sought to break out a 


variety of radon datapoints, some were from the 


underground rock tunnels which were excluded 


because they're not comparable to a phosphate 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

212 

plant. And then there were a number of other 


datapoints that were included. These were then 


put into a distribution and then a geometric 


mean was taken of that, and that was what was 


applied here. 


 Now the question that I had posed yesterday and 


would pose again is why is it that, for 


example, the upper 95th percentile -- which is 


normally what you'd do with coworker models, 


assuming this data is representative, which we 


haven't established yet -- why is it the 95th 


percentile wouldn't have been used as your 


bounding dose estimate? 


 DR. ULSH: Okay. First of all, we're not 


representing -- we're not -- it's not our 


position that this is representative. It's our 


position that this is bounding. And the reason 


that we're making -- we're taking that position 


because this -- the radon data was for 


facilities that were similar to Blockson and 


had the same source material; that is, 


phosphate rock from Florida. 


Now with regards to the 95th percentile, 


certainly that would be an overestimate. But 


when you consider the fact that the ra-- the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

213 

radon-generating material never even went into 


Building 55, we considered that the 50th 


percentile was an appropriate value to use -- 


the geometric mean. 


 MR. MILLER: Okay, fine. Now let's go to the 


second question which Pete Turcic raised, which 


was when Blockson Chemical was initially 


listed, it was Building 55 only, and then there 


were -- and there was a series of Federal 


Register notices that were made about Blockson 


Chemical over the years. I believe there were 


two supplements to that in terms of defining 


what constituted covered employment and covered 


activities at the facility. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 MR. MILLER: Bear with me for a second. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 MR. MILLER: Yeah, bear with me for a second. 


I just want to get to it for a second and -- 


and delighted to hear your answer to it. 


My understanding is -- from having read the 


contract between Atomic Energy Commission and 


Blockson -- that Blockson purchased uranium at 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

214 

around $10 bucks a pound -- Blockson sold, 


rather, uranium at about $10 bucks a pound to 


the government. The government didn't pay for 


a phase of the process; they paid for a product 


out the end of the door -- off the -- off the 


gate. 


My understanding of how this plant and the 


process worked was that you had the rock 


phosphate come in. It was dissolved I believe 


in sulfuric acid. It went through a 


precipitating process. At a certain point, the 


radium precipitated out of the stream and then 


once it got through several precipitating 


processes, it wound up getting to Building 55 


where there probably wasn't much radium left in 


there anymore given the precipitating process. 


 The question was, given that this is not a side 


stream and that all dose has to be counted -- 


all dose to workers has to be counted in the 


course of this, including NARM, or nat-- you 


know, some sort of naturally occurring 


radioactive materials here, the question is, 


how can you exclude or are you excluding those 


who were involved in the pestle-grinding? They 


had these big grinders that ground up the rock, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

215 

and then you had another group of people that 


loaded it with front-loaders and then they 


dumped them into vats, and then once they're in 


the vats they added the sulfuric acid, and then 


they neutralized the acid and then they 


precipitated out the sludges. Okay. All of 


those phases of the production process took 


place in some kind of building or maybe they 


took place out -- out of doors, I don't know. 


How come -- first of all, is that covered 


activity under -- for purposes of dose 


reconstruction? 


 Second question, is that covered activity 


appropriately bounded here? And if it's 


appropriately bounded, how do you know it's 


appropriately bounded with respect to the 


facilities in Florida? 


 DR. ULSH: Okay. The answer to your first 


question, Mr. Miller, if I could perhaps take a 


stab at that. As I understand it, and I'll let 


Pete correct me if I misspeak, since placing 


someone in Building 55 or somewhere else on the 


Blockson site. 


 They don't make an effort to do that. In other 


words, anyone who works at Blockson is eligible 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

216 

to apply -- put in a claim for compensation in 


this program. 


Pete, do you want to add to that? 


 MR. TURCIC: Yeah, I think there's some 


confusion going on here, confusing the 


difference between what is the covered facility 


versus what we're talking about here is who is 


a covered employee, you know, who gets in that 


door. 


What -- the covered facility is Building 55, 


the Pilot plant, and any of the activities that 


were involved in the phosphate trail in the 


main production line that was involved in the 


process that ended up dumping the uranium out ­

- you know, outside. So the covered facility 


are parts of that phosphate trail plus Building 


55 and the Pilot plant. 


From a standpoint of then administering the 


program, we found that there was no way we 


could identify only those people -- you know, 


identify the people that actually worked in 


Building 55 or in the functions that -- there 


were functions added to the main product stream 


in order to subtract it out. Those added 


functions are in fact part of the covered 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

217 

employment. 


So we have two things here. We have the 


covered facility. But then how do we get to 


who is covered in those facilities; and for all 


intents and purposes, it's everybody in 


Blockson because we are unable to make those 


separations. 


 DR. ULSH: Okay. Now with regard to the second 


question that you asked, how do we know that 


the activities that occurred in Building 55 are 


bounding for the other things that Pete just 


mentioned. You have to recall, Richard, that 


what they were doing in Building 55 was 


concentrating uranium there, and so the 


concentration of the uranium that they handled 


in Building 55 was higher than any of the steps 


prior. And the workers had direct contact with 


the yellowcake. Therefore the -- it's normal ­

- it's reasonable to assume that the -- that 


the activities that occurred in Building 55 


with more concentrated uranium are bounding -- 


I mean in a general sense. 


 MR. MILLER: Bounding except for radon, because 


radon was already removed by that stage in the 


process. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

218

 DR. ULSH: That is correct. 


 MR. MILLER: And because of that, the -- the -- 


the production process -- I guess the question 


that I'm trying to still get clarity on, I 


think Dr. Ziemer was kind of zoning in on this 


better maybe than I did or -- when he spoke 


earlier. My question is, are you assuming -- 


when you're saying that you can reconstruct 


dose with sufficient accuracy -- that you can 


reconstruct the dose with sufficient accuracy 


for the ball grinder, the loader, the tank -- 


the guys who dump the stuff in the tank, the 


people who shoveled out the sludge which had 


all of the precipitate that came out in the 


various stages as it moved through the process 


prior to it ever getting to Building 55? Are 


you saying you can bound it for them as well, 


and if so, what is your basis for concluding 


that you can bound it and -- and -- in terms of 


your comparison with these Florida facilities? 


 DR. ULSH: Okay, I -- I think you're perhaps 


combining a couple of different issues. The 


ans-- the short answer to your question is yes, 


we are saying that the dose reconstructions 


that we do that consider the activities in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

219 

I 

Building 55 bound any dose from any activity 


that occurred at the Blockson Chemical site. 


think that might answer your question. Now --


 MR. MILLER: Except for radon. 


 DR. ULSH: Now, in terms of radon, we are using 


numbers from similar facilities in Florida 


where the radon-generating material was 


actually inside the building, which is not the 


case here. That's -- the radon-generating 


material at Blockson is outside the building 


and not inside --


 MR. MILLER: But -- but it -- but was it in 


another building or was it just all handled out 


in the snow and the ice and the sleet? 


 DR. ULSH: I can't answer that. It was 


somewhere outside of the covered facility -- 


 MR. MILLER: But --


 DR. ULSH: -- on the Blockson site. 


 MR. MILLER: -- but you see, this notion that 


it's outside the covered facility is creating a 


bit of -- I mean Pete just explained, I think 


very clearly, that the covered activities go 


well beyond Building 55 and so we have to 


analyze what took place with the folks who 


ground -- I mean most of the radium is going to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

220 

be in that rock or when you precipitate it out 


in those first stages. And so the question is 


how -- I mean -- I'm through. I -- I think I 


made the point. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We understand the question and -- 

 MR. MILLER: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Board members, any other 

comments or questions? 


 (No responses) 


You have -- you have several possible actions 


before you -- actions or inactions. One action 


would be a motion to support the NIOSH review 


in -- in terms of -- which in effect is denial 


of an SEC. Another action would be to 


recommend an SEC. Another possible action 


would be to -- to postpone action and -- and 


look for some follow-up on some open -- what 


appear to be some open questions, or even to 


engage the Board's contractor for assistance 


would be another possible sub-action. What is 


your pleasure? 


 Dr. Melius, do you -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- have a comment or --


 DR. MELIUS: Well, let me --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

221

 DR. ZIEMER: -- do you wish to make a motion? 


 DR. MELIUS: No, I don't want to make a motion, 


but let me say what I'm thinking about and get 


some reactions from the Board. First of all, I 


-- I'm -- I would propose that we postpone 


action on this. I think for -- two things I -- 


several reasons. One is I think it would be 


helpful, certainly to the credibility of the -- 


of the process and so forth, that NIOSH do more 


outreach and -- and hold a meeting as been -- 


as has been suggested and I think Larry agreed 


to it. I'm not -- don't want to commit you, 


but I think there -- there was a willingness to 


do that, so I think it -- that -- that would be 


helpful. 


 Meanwhile, I think we need -- certainly need 


clarification on this production issue. My 


neighbor here, Bob Presley, looked up the USA 


Today article on the Internet while we were 


talking and it did -- did say two million 


pounds or something like that of uranium. Now 


again, what the basis for that is, I think we 


need to know and get a better handle on. And I 


think that's something NIOSH should do and -- 


and can do and so forth. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

222 

I would also like to get clarification on this 


radon issue and exactly what's being done 


there, and I would I think propose that we have 


SC&A foc-- do an evaluation focused on that 


specific issue and re-- report back to the 


Board. I'm not sure if there were other issues 


that other members of the Board have that 


they'd like sort of technical clarification on, 


but I guess I would be proposing a sort of a 


focused review by SC&A, focusing on that 


particul-- at least on that particular issue -- 


with the idea that that could be reported back 


in a timely and fairly short -- short period of 


time. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Melius, I guess at this point 


you're -- you're raising a flag here to see if 


anyone salutes -- as opposed to making a formal 


motion or what might be included in a motion -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- in addition to the items you 


raise. I think you've identified or clarified 


several points that have been the focus of this 


discussion -- the worker outreach point, the 


issue of the -- basically the source term -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

223

 DR. ZIEMER: -- the production level, and then 


the use of the radon data. 


 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda Munn. 


 MS. MUNN: As a matter of simple clarification, 


Dr. Melius's suggestions are well taken. 


Particularly of importance I think is that the 


SC&A, if we do ask them to do so, focus very 


clearly on this single point and not go astray 


into other portions of what additional minutiae 


might impact in some small way what's going on, 


because this appears to be a large enough issue 


that it could bear their scrutiny on its own. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Clearly the first two points, the 


worker outreach, the ball would be in NIOSH's 


court on that. The production issue, hopefully 


we can get the source of the USA Today's data 


and NIOSH's and find out perhaps -- I don't 


know if Mr. Lapine can help us on that, but if 


we can -- I guess we know now where the USA 


Today data comes from. If Peter Eisler's 


information can be made available, if he can 


reveal his secret sources to us, perhaps we can 


get clarity on that. And then the issue of the 


radon, we have the TIB. In essence I think you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

224 

would be asking for a TIB review, and then how 


it was applied to this particular facility. 


 DR. MELIUS: Correct, and -- and I think we'd 


ask them to look both how it was -- well, I 


think it's really how it was applied in the SEC 


evaluation would I think sort of cover -- cover 


it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments, Board members? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Just a -- yeah, I don't disagree 


with the -- the notion of a targeted review. 


-- I think it might be worthwhile for at least 


the Board to consider some of the other issues, 


though. I think we -- we probably need SC&A's 


assistance on the radon, but I want to point 


out that there's -- you know, there's no 


external data, there's no -- there -- there is 


urinalysis data, but we -- we should look at 


the representativeness issue. I'm not sure 


everybody's had a chance to really mull over 


that data. I know I haven't. I looked in some 


of the example DRs and there's -- there's some 


different value applied. I think it's based on 


maximizing principles in one case and different 


values for other cases. 


Also on the external, I think there's an 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

225 

important point. We've been talking about this 


40-hour issue, which seems very -- at least 


NIOSH is proposing that as a sort of claimant-


favorable option, but I think we need to pay 


attention to the -- the one-foot part of that 


equation because if you look at figure five in 


the TBD, the beta doses drop off from 150 


millirem per hour on contact to two millirem 


per hour at one foot, so I think -- you know, 


it -- it's almost more claimant favorable to 


assume one hour of direct handling than 40 


hours at one foot -- it is more claimant 


favorable. So there -- there's some details in 


there that I think I need to look at. I'm not 


sure we need to involve the contractor on all 


of those, but --


 DR. ZIEMER: In fact, if we were to pass a 


motion of the type described, I -- I think the 


-- the Chair would probably want to assign a 


workgroup to track these between now and our 


next meeting and -- and to address any related 


issues. I -- I'm wondering if -- if it would 


be helpful for the potential mover of the 


motion to have some break time to prepare some 


wording, and we are close to our -- our break. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

226 

And Jim, if you're willing to -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Oh, I can -- I'm willing to take a 


stab at it right now. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right now, okay. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 MR. STEPHAN: Chairman, can we have just one 


final comment before the motion comes on the 


floor? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


 MR. STEPHAN: I just have to make sure, not to 


belabor the point, I think Mr. Griffon -- or 


Dr. Griffon? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Mister. 


 MR. STEPHAN: -- Mr. Griffon and the doctor 


have hit on this point, but I want to clarify 


the -- the Senator's position. The Senator's 


position is not to ask SC&A to review radon 


only. The Senator's position is to ask SC&A -- 


and it's just his request; certainly -- 


obviously you don't have to do it, but his 


request is to ask them to review the entire 


process, so that is the external and internal, 


whether or not it is reasonable; the source 


term -- I believe it was mentioned earlier and 


I'm not sure that I understand this correctly, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

227 

but that we only have data up until 1955 about 


the volume of what was produced. Is that 


correct? And so -- so that is one thing that 


we would want to take a look at and how that is 


factored in, if we can, 'cause that goes to the 


issue of how -- how much was there. I just 


want to make sure I have it all here. 


Basically, you know, his request is a full 


review of the SEC evaluation. We just -- we 


just think that is fair. You know, I -- I 


don't think the Senator would think that the 


rest of those issues are minutiae, so however 


they are addressed, hopefully they will be 


addressed -- it is our request that they are 


addressed by the audit contractor. Thank you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: The oth-- the other --


 DR. ZIEMER: Let me -- let me respond to that, 


and I understand the statement that you've 


made. We generally put some boun-- bounds on 


our auditor in terms of tasking them. It's --


it's not simply an open thing to do whatever 


you wish. 


The other part of it is that we have -- we have 


to be careful that we don't task our auditor to 


do work that NIOSH should be doing. For 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

228 

example, the identification of the correct 


source term I think rightfully is NIOSH's task. 


And you know, we would want to look over the 


shoulder and say have they used the right 


sources, but I, for example, would not want to 


task our auditor with the job of finding that 


information when rightfully it's -- it's the 


agency's job to do that. We -- we are auditing 


what they do, and if a problem is identified 


and there appears to be a discrepancy on a 


point like that, then they need to go back and 


-- and convince us that either they have the 


correct information or if the USA Today's -- 


and -- and certainly if necessary we can have 


our auditor look at the sources and say, you 


know, who's reliable and so on. So I don't -- 


I don't think we'll tie their hands in saying 


you can't look at anything else, but we -- we 


do want to keep the scope somewhat focused, 


also recognizing that concurrently we have a 


whole lot of additional SECs that are not 


unlike this, and there are limits to what we 


can do in terms of our auditor's own resources 


and time. 


Mark. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

229

 MR. GRIFFON: That's fine, that's 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. But -- but I think if we 


have a workgroup that's tracking this and if we 


find other issues, we do have the capability of 


tasking the -- the contractor to do additional 


tasks. And Lew, I think that's been our 


practice and we can certainly do that as we 


proceed, so -- we will be sensitive to those 


other issues, as well. 


So the Chair recognizes Dr. Melius for the 


purposes of -- of making a motion. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I would move 


that we postpone consideration of this SE-- of 


our review of this SEC evaluation pending, 


number one, that NIOSH conduct further activity 


to attempt to clarify the discrepanc-- 


important discrepancy in production figures 


related to this facility and the time period in 


question; number two, that until NIOSH has held 


a meeting with people near -- near the facility 


to obtain input from people, the 


representatives, claimants and people that have 


been involved in the SEC petition; and number 


three, that the Board establish a workgroup 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

230 

that would work with our contractor -- task our 


contractor to conduct a focused review on -- on 


specific issues related to the SEC evaluation, 


including but not necessarily limited to the 


radon issue that we have discussed here today. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. You've heard the 


motion. Is there a second? 


 MR. GIBSON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: And seconded by Mr. Gibson. Now 


the motion is open for discussion. 


Wanda, you're chuckling. 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda wanted to second the motion. 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 DR. ZIEMER: She had already indicated support 


for it. 


 MS. MUNN: No, that's -- that's quite all 


right. I have no comments. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Other comments 


or questions? 


 (No responses) 


Is the motion sufficiently clear that the Chair 


doesn't have to repeat it? 


 DR. MELIUS: Or Ray. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, I -- I will reiterate 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

231 

the one sort of slight change. It was in point 


three that we established the workgroup and, 


with the help of the contractor, track 


appropriate issues including but not limited to 


the radon issue. So it opens the door for 


other issues to -- to be addressed. 


That is the motion. Let us vote. All in favor 


of the motion, raise your right hand. The 


Chair is also voting. I was told that, for the 


record, I needed to record my vote. 


I see all ayes. Any no’s that I haven't 


detected? 


 (No responses) 


And no abstentions. The motion carries. Thank 


you very much. We're going to take a break. 


 DR. WADE: Well, could we do the workgroup 


quickly? I mean it --


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, appoint -- appoint the 


workgroup. 


 DR. WADE: While it's right here. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We can do that. As you know, the 


Chair usually likes to get volunteers for 


workgroups. We like three, or possibly four 


individuals who are willing to participate in 


this workgroup. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

232

 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda Munn. 


 DR. MELIUS: In that case... 


 MR. GRIFFON: What are you guys doing, 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: These two love to work together. 


DR. ROESSLER: It's called balance. 


 DR. MELIUS: I missed you on Hanford. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Are there any others? 


 DR. WADE: It can be two. 


 MR. GIBSON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Mike Gibson. And --


 MR. GRIFFON: You want to stay at three or -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- I'll take one more. Okay, Gen 


Roessler. 


Dr. Roessler, you haven't chaired any 


workgroups lately, have you? 


DR. ROESSLER: I -- if this is to be done by 


February, I couldn't take on the Chairmanship, 


I don't think, but I could be on it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You could be on it, okay. 


DR. ROESSLER: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let's see, Wanda, are you chairing 


anything? I know that Jim is and I know that 


Mike is. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 -- 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

233

 MS. MUNN: No, I'm not. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Would you chair? 


 MS. MUNN: Sure. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Wanda Munn. And the Chair 


will be responsible for establishing times and 


so on. Jim? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I have one further request 


that's -- came up here and it's come up in the 


past, also, and that's the whole issue of using 


data from other facilities as part of either 


coworker models or other models on source terms 


and so forth. I really think we need to sort 


of re-evaluate that and at least re-discuss 


that at a -- at a Board meeting. There's 


certainly some --


 DR. ZIEMER: This may in fact be in that 


category of an overarching or (unintelligible) 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, overarching technical issue 


-- well, it's also a -- there's a legal aspect 


to this because of the wording in -- in the Act 


and so forth and I really think we need to pay 


a little bit -- little attention to -- we 


haven't talked about it in a while and it -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Basically this is a big-picture 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

234 

policy issue of using coworker data. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It's not confined to this site, 


has a wider-reaching -- actually I think Mr. 


Stephan mentioned that, as well -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and that's one, when we talk 


about workgroups, we can -- 


 DR. MELIUS: And even -- I would like to have 


some open discussion at our next Board meeting 


on this --


 DR. ZIEMER: We'll put it on --


 DR. WADE: We can put it on the agenda. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: For my own edification, is there any 


sense of timing conveyed with this motion or 


the workgroup? Are we aiming at the February 


meeting? Are we standing silent? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, maybe Larry can address the 


issue of -- I mean --


 DR. WADE: An outreach meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- we're -- we're recommending the 


worker outreach program and, you know, what are 


we talking about in terms of time-wise on that, 


and also --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

235

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I'd like to get it done as 


soon as possible. Can I have it done before 


the February meeting? I don't know; we'll have 


to look into that. We need to talk with the 


right people and make sure we get it all 


scheduled and coordinated. 


What I came to the mike was to provide 


clarification. You're not talking about 


coworker data. When we use the term 


"coworker," that has a specific definition. 


Okay? What you're talking about is using data 


from similar operations or processes not at 


this particular facility. 


 DR. MELIUS: Correct. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. Coworker data, in our 


parlance, means we've taken a distribution of 


the workers' exposure data and we're applying 


that to situations and people who do not have 


monitoring data, so there's a subtle difference 


there, but when you schedule this for your next 


Board meeting, we want to be prepared to talk 


about data used across facilities for similar 


operations. 


 DR. MELIUS: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

236

 DR. WADE: Can -- can I assume then that -- as 


to the timing of this, February is -- is 


desirable, but certainly May is a target for 


having this issue --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we certainly want an update 


in February and to --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- to be as far along as we can. 


Obviously we don't want to drag the decision on 


Blockson on and on and on, so we -- we need to 


move forward. 


Michael? 


 MR. GIBSON: Yeah. Larry, this question's to 


you. On the issue of coworker data, I know 


there's the issue of using data from one plant 


to another plant on workers, but there's also 


the issue of coworker data at people at the 


same site on the same job when the contractor 


would maybe put a breathing air lapel monitor 


on one out of every four workers, and it's the 


rad tech who stands over here in the corner, 


and the rest of us are over here doing the 


work. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: And certainly that is a coworker 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

237 

data issue. That's how we apply -- you -- 


you're bringing up an issue about how we apply 


coworker data for people who weren't monitored, 


but that's different than what you were talking 


about here a moment ago. 


 MR. GIBSON: I understand, but I -- I mean I 


brought that question up before and I bring it 


up again. I'd like an answer to that. 


 DR. MELIUS: But -- but -- I mean -- my 


understanding -- excuse me for interrupting, 


Mike, but is that that is -- there's a number 


of procedures that address that and my 


recollection is that those were some of the 


procedures that SC&A was reviewing. And so I 


thought we were covering that -- that specific 


issue, the co--


 DR. ZIEMER: In a different TIB, I believe. 


 DR. MELIUS: In a different TIB, correct, yeah, 


but that's -- so --


 DR. ZIEMER: But that -- that issue is still -- 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, so what we're -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- to be addressed later. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- I guess what I was saying is we 

weren't -- the -- sort of ignoring that issue, 


but it was -- the facility to facility issue is 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

238 

where... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Yes, Brad 


Clawson. 


 MR. CLAWSON: I -- I just have one issue and 


that is, you know, we're -- we're getting so 


many -- we're getting on so many workgroups, 


and one of the problems that I've seen here 


lately is when the Chair is not able to be able 


to meet at it, it's hard to be able to address. 


Would it be beneficial for us to be able to 


have a co-chair so that -- so that we can 


proceed on with these? I know that in several 


of our groups it's been quite difficult and I 


just think it'd be -- if we appointed a cochair along with the chair so that we'd be able 


to proceed on further and faster. 


 DR. WADE: I think we can take that up for all 


the workgroups tomorrow. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. Good -- good suggestion. 


Okay, let's take a 15-minute break and then 


we'll resume. 


 DR. MELIUS: I want to co-chair with Wanda. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 3:00 p.m. 


to 3:30 p.m.) 

-- 

239 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

ALLIED CHEMICAL CORP. SEC PETITION
 

MR. STUART HINNEFELD, NIOSH/OCAS


 DR. ZIEMER: Board members, we're ready to now 


turn our attention to the SEC petition for 


Allied Chemical Corporation, and Stuart 


Hinnefeld is going to present the evaluation 


report from NIOSH for Allied. Stu? 


 DR. WADE: As Stu is miking up, I would also 


ask, if there are petitioners or 


representatives for Allied Chemical, that they 


identify themselves. 


 MR. KLINGHAMMER:* Yes, my name is Billy 


Klinghammer. I'm the local President -- out of 


Metropolis, Illinois, Local 7-669. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Billy. 


 DR. WADE: And we'll give you an opportunity to 


speak, Billy. 


 DR. ZIEMER: After he speaks, if you wish, 


we'll turn the mike to you. 


 DR. WADE: Anyone else? 


 (No responses) 


Okay. Stu? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: (Off microphone) Okay. Thank 


you. I'm here to discuss the (unintelligible) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

240

 (Pause) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Are we on? 


(Pause) 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think I might be on now. Can 


-- can you hear me? Okay. 


I'm here to discuss our petition evaluation 


report for the SEC -- class for SEC petition 


associated with Allied Chemical Corporation in 


Metropolis. Allied Chemical is a uranium 


conversion plant. It's located in Metropolis, 


Illinois. It converts uranium to -- largely 


uranium hexafluoride for use elsewhere. 


It had an arrangement with the AEC for a period 


of time to produce uranium hexafluoride for I 


believe the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, 


for sure. Maybe for others, but certainly 


Paducah. And so they had a relation-- 


relationship with the AEC during that time and 


therefore is considered an Atomic Weapons 


Employer for that period of time. 


This again is an 83.14 petition. We've 


evaluated the potential exposures there and 


find that we have an issue with providing dose 


reconstruction with sufficient accuracy for 


dose reconstruction for all members of the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

241 

class, and so we've identified a particular 


claimant, a representative claimant, that -- 


whose dose reconstruction we felt we couldn't 


do appropriately, notified that person of that 


and then we evaluated the class of similar 


workers who may be in a similar situation. 


I just went through these a little -- a little 


bit ago. Our two-pronged test is to determine 


if it's feasible to estimate the radiation 


doses with sufficient accuracy. And if it is 


not feasible, then we make a judgment about 


whether there's a reasonable likelihood that 


the radiation exposures at the plant may have 


endangered the health of the members of the 


class. 


The Allied Chemical Plant's a uranium 


conversion plant. It converted uranium ore 


concentrates -- and probably other feed 


materials, as well -- to UF-6. This was then 


sent to enrichment facilities. 


 Covered employment period begins in 1959 when 


the plant opened, and it continues until 1976, 


which appears to be the end of the relationship 


with AEC. Operation of the plant for 


commercial purposes continued past our covered 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

242 

employment period and, if I'm not mistaken, 


still continues today. The plant still 


operates today for commercial purposes. 


Uranium ore, ore concentrates, and uranium 


recovered from site operations -- you know, the 


things you recover from the waste streams and 


put back into the production stream -- were put 


through a series of chemical reactions that -- 


of -- I outlined briefly there, ultimately 


resulting in a UF-6 product. The SEC 


evaluation report contains additional 


information about the specifics of the 


processes and what those actual chemical 


processes were. 


The UF-6 then -- the product is loaded into 


cylinders, the big UF-6 cylinders -- or at 


least most of them are big -- that we're 


familiar with for -- those are suitable for 


transport to other facilities. 


It appears that personnel were routinely 


monitored for external exposure, and we do have 


monitoring results. The plant there cooperates 


with us and provides exposure histories for 


claimants when we go -- when we request them. 


And personnel were monitored for internal 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

243 

exposure for uranium by in vivo and in vitro, 


you know, urinalysis bioassay. Those results 


are available, though the in vivo monitoring 


began after 1976. There's actually no in vivo 


monitoring during the -- the period of -- the 


covered period. 


Now there are no monitoring data available in 


the exposure records for exposures to non-


uranium radionuclides that would have been 


present -- would have come in in the uranium 


ore and ore concentrates, and then would have 


been -- the relative states of equilibrium and 


disequilibrium would have been disturbed as the 


-- as the materials went through the conversion 


processes. 


And I say here there is no particular 


information available about the relative 


abundance of non-uranium radionuclides and 


about how that relative abundance may have 


changed in various parts of the plant. 


We do have available to us some limited air 


monitoring data for years after the covered 


period. These indica-- these data indicate the 


airborne concentrations -- concentrations 


tended to decrease over time for this period 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

244 

that we have data for, so since there is a -- 


since it's a -- not a constant concentration, 


since it tends -- it has declined as time goes 


on, which is probably generally true of the 


industry in general that airborne 


concentrations tended to decline as time went 


on, we don't feel that these airborne data from 


after the covered period provide us a method to 


bound the exposures during the covered period 


or what the airborne concentrations might have 


been during the covered period because, while 


we see them decline in later years, we don't 


know where they declined from in 1959. And so 


we don't feel like we're able to bound those 


earlier exposures -- or earlier airborne 


concentrations based on that later data. 


Based on claimant interviews that have been 


conducted, it appears pretty regularly that 


routine chest X-rays were performed on an 


annual basis as part of the routine physical. 


This is not an unusual practice, and so if -- 


we believe we can reconstruct the medical dose 


based on those protocols in the other existing 


Technical Basis Documents that we've already 


published about reconstructing medical 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

245 

exposure. 


So we have identified a case where we felt it 


was not -- we could not obtain sufficient 


information to do a dose reconstruction with 


sufficient accuracy. On August 25th we 


notified the representative claimant that dose 


reconstruction could not be completed for his 


case -- or her case, I don't know which -- and 


a copy of the Special Exposure Cohort petition 


Form A was provided that claimant. This is 


essentially the short form petition, please 


sign and send it back and we will do a petition 


evaluation report. 


Petition -- the type -- part A -- Form A 


petition was returned to us on September 6th 


and we proceeded with the preparation of 


petition evaluation report which, you know, we 


-- much of the research for we had done in 


order to arrive at the conclusion that we 


couldn't do the -- it wasn't feasible to do 


dose reconstruction. 


So our conclusion is we lack the monitoring, 


process, or source information sufficient to 


estimate the internal doses resulting from non-


uranium nuclides for the period of January 1st, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

246 

1959 through December 31st, 1976, which is the 


entire covered period for the EEOICPA program 


for this facility. 


And we do believe that we have sufficient 


information, though, based on the records we've 


received from claimants -- relative to 


claimants -- not from claimants, but the 


records of the claimants that we have received, 


we have sufficient information to estimate the 


external dose, the internal doses from uranium 


and the medical exposures for the period, for 


the SEC period. 


With respect to your health endangerment, we 


have not identified incidents or a single 


incident that would result in a -- in a dose of 


the magnitude similar to a criticality 


accident, so we don't believe that presence is 


suitable -- is a suitable criterion for 


inclusion. But we do believe that there's 


evidence that workers were chronically exposed 


to some level of radiation exposure, and that 


exposure is sufficient to potentially endanger 


their health, and therefore there's a -- we do 


believe that there is a potential for harm, 


given chronic exposure to the -- at the plant. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

247 

Our proposed class definition is all AWE 


employees who were monitored, or should have 


been monitored, for exposure to ionizing 


radiation while working at the Allied Chemical 


Corporation plant, Metropolis, Illinois, for a 


number of work days aggregating at least 250 


from January 1st, 1959 through December 31st, 


1976, or in combination with work days within 


the parameters established for one or more 


other classes of employees in the SEC. 


 Now it's probably worth mentioning at this 


point that when we use the phrase "monitored, 


or should have been monitored" for this plant, 


and it appears that certainly for a period of 


this -- of this time there was a -- a strong 


comprehensive monitoring program. I think 


there -- it may be that there would be people 


who worked during this period who should not 


have been monitored, were not monitored, and 


were correctly not monitored. And there may be 


judgments made to that effect based upon -- 


perhaps on job title or perhaps on other 


considerations. I'm just speculating at this 


point. But I think the opportunity is here to 


say that the -- there -- maybe not everyone was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 -- 

25 

248 

exposed and therefore faced with potential for 


harm for -- that the exposed workers faced, so 


I would comment that that may be the case here. 


 Our recommendation then, based upon our 


evaluation of available data, is that for this 


period, January 1st, 1959 through December 


31st, 1976, we find that we cannot construct 


the entire dose with sufficient accuracy for 


compensation purposes, so we don't believe it's 


feasible to reconstruct the dose entirely 


during that period. And we do believe that 


there's potential for health endangerment. 


These are the two questions that we have to 


address in our recommendation. 


And so much for my presentation. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Stu, and if we were to 


use the additional breakdown chart as we did in 


the others, then if I can summarize -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- for external you would say 


feasibility is yes? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: For internal, uranium would be yes 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

249

 DR. ZIEMER: -- and other nuclides would be no. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: For external medical, yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So it's again, as in other cases, 


the driver here is internal other than uranium. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Comments or questions 


on this -- yeah, Wanda Munn. 


 MS. MUNN: I guess this does raise a question 


that perhaps has not gotten as much thought as 


it deserves, which is, in situations like this, 


how are we going to legitimately decide whether 


a person should have been monitored when we 


have this interesting mixture of employees and 


very differing sets of -- of job descriptions 


there. Is there -- is there some way we can 


parse that reasonably? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I -- maybe the short 


answer is it's not our responsibility to decide 


that. The Department of Labor administers the 


class, and so -- I mean that would be the short 


answer. 


There are probably -- there -- there may be 


information available for the specific 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

250 

individual based on job title or other 


information that we have from them, but I don't 


-- I'm not familiar with, I don't have handy -- 


you know, memorized, or I don't know particular 


-- that provides additional information about 


that and about who really was potentially 


exposed or not. 


 MS. MUNN: Really just wanted reassurance that 


that responsibility was not going to wash over 


into some of the activities that we have, that 


this will remain outside the purview of this 


Board's --

 DR. WADE: Oh, I don't --

 MS. MUNN: -- responsibility. 

 DR. WADE: I mean I don't know that that's a 

given. I mean the Board can approach its 


definition of a class in a variety of ways, so 


the Board could decide to opine on that issue 


based upon how it would define the class. The 


-- the Board could say all the workers. So I 


don't know that it's necessarily outside the 


purview of the Board. It could be, depending 


on how the Board chooses to do its business. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Now when I was up here earlier 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

251 

I was asked -- when I was up here speaking 


about Harshaw, I was asked how many claims are 


we talking about and I said I'd have the answer 


by 3:00 o'clock from my staff back in 


Cincinnati, and I do have it. I have it for 


both sites. 


For Allied Chemical, the site we're talking 


about now, there are 59 total claims that have 


time in the SEC time period, in the covered 


period; 26 of those claims have at least one 


SEC-listed cancer. 


For Harshaw, the one I spoke about earlier, 


they have 13 total claims in the SEC time 


period, and nine of those have at least one 


SEC-listed cancer. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Harshaw was 13 and nine? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Thirteen and nine. 


 MS. MUNN: Very good. 


 DR. WADE: But we do have a petitioner's 


representative to hear from, as well. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, do you have comments to make 


on this petition, sir? 


 MR. KLINGHAMMER: Yes, sir. I do appreciate 


the work that NIOSH has done and all the hard 


work went into it there. To the one question 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

252 

about the job titles in the -- in the plant, if 


I could maybe clarify some of that, in the 


plant, as far as maintenance, we work -- we 


work all over the plant, so you would be 


assigned -- you were always going to get to 


work in the feed building or the related 


buildings around. 


And on -- in the production side, everyone is 


expected to do general labor, so they're liable 


to -- they -- they might shut your unit down 


here and have you digging out a elevator of UF4 in the basement. So the jobs are just spread 


all over the plant, and there's no way you can 


escape. Our main process is, you know, UF-6, 


and some of the by-product operations outside 


in the different buildings, they will all 


eventually work in the feed building. It's 


just -- it's just part of it. You're going to 


be there. 


On -- course I do appreciate the work done, 


like I said, in the -- in the years of 


eligibility, but we also had two incidents and 


one of them I'd like to bring up was a UF-4 


with plutonium in it that came from Fernald 


that ca-- that ended up in our plant in the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

253 

late '90s. And I don't know if anyone ever 


brought this to NIOSH's attention. We have a 


hard time pap-- paper-chasing this down. We 


know it came from Fernald, but we don't 


actually know where its origin was. It could 


have been -- you know, it could have been Oak 


Ridge, it could have been Paducah; we don't 


know. But it came in that plant and we're 


estimating -- I've got paperwork on it -- 


probably '98 or '99 from there. And also --


and with that said, I think that deserves to be 


looked into because that's introducing some 


compounds in our plant that -- you know, that 


most people didn't know was there and maybe 


should not have been there. 


Also on cylinder -- cylinder wash, we -- we 


received cylinders back from Paducah, and they 


could come from anywhere in the complex and -- 


our UF-6 cylinders, and we also -- we washed 


the hills out of them. So we believe there is 


a very good possibility that transuranics were 


introduced back into the plant from either 


Paducah, Portsmouth or wherever, 'cause we have 


no way of knowing, what we sent out, if we got 


the same cylinder back. Those cylinders in the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

254 

-- in the complex could come from anywhere. 


So those are two of our concerns. And on our 


dates of eligibility, like I say, I've -- I'm 


not here to look a gift horse in the mouth and 


-- and I appreciate the work that's being done, 


and I'm just trying to add to it and I think 


there's more work to be done. And we have not 


had a official worker's outreach. I did 


organize a little bit last summer with the DOL 


and NIOSH came in and they was very helpful to 


some of my retirees, but I -- I could be more 


organized if I had an outlet to -- to go to. 


 DR. ZIEMER: In regard to your statement about 


the plutonium and other possible nuclides, if 


that were the case, I -- I don't see that that 


would change your recommendation. It would 


basically reinforce it, would it not? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it -- and I --


 DR. ZIEMER: The recommendation for SEC. 


Unless it changes the dates in some way. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there's -- there's a 


question here about the dates. 


 MR. KLINGHAMMER: The dates is -- and I know 


the people that set the parameters on dates are 


not here, and I know that the Department of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

255 

Labor -- with DOE or whoever -- helps set the 


dates, and we just have to follow those 


guidelines, or NIOSH does. But I just wanted 


to put it as part of the record -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. KLINGHAMMER: -- of what we see that could 


contribute to expanding these dates and the 


residual effect, even without this other 


material, could come -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is that information --


 MR. KLINGHAMMER: -- into play. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- available on when the plutonium 


that you referred to was introduced, or the 


other... 


 MR. KLINGHAMMER: I would have to dig into my 


files 'cause when the plutonium hit the plant ­

- or this green salt hit the plant, I would 


have to do what I could, but it might take more 


than me to get -- to get to the bottom of it -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is this --


 MR. KLINGHAMMER: -- as to --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let me ask NIOSH. Is this 


new information or is this something we knew 


about? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This is not something that was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

256 

talked about in the petition evaluation report, 


given the time frame. I mean, you know, for 


material that was sent there in the '90s and, 


you know, our -- you know, we really don't have 


the authority or the ability to expand the 


covered period of a site beyond, you know, 


what's been established. 


Now, having heard this information, though, 


there may be avenues we could pursue about 


finding out the -- the evolution of that -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Or -- or if there was something -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and the (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- present after this time period 


that could open --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Then again, this is 


pretty far outside my bailiwick in terms of 


talking about what makes a site covered and 


what makes it --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- covered work. In the -- in 


the '90s, certainly Fernald wa-- had done -- 


was done producing and was dispositioning DOE 


inventory in whatever way it could. This may 


have been an excess uranium sale to the private 


-- to private -- which probably is a little 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

257 

different than a shipment from a DOE facility 


as part of that DOE facility's operation. 


 MR. KLINGHAMMER: I do have -- I do have 


further -- I do remember. We did bring NRC 


involved in that and so they would have -- they 


came in and done their own investigation as far 


as checking the material, so they would -- it 


would be on record with NRC. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: We do have a request from the 


audience that we all speak into the microphones 


clearly, so -- to the Board and to people who 


come to the microphone, please. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 MR. KLINGHAMMER: Thank you very much. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Brad, do you have a comment? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Yeah, I -- hello? I was just 


concerned because they were only calling out 


the UF-6, and what I was wondering was if it 


addressed any of the -- if they'd diluted, 


because I guess from my standpoint, I know that 


Idaho sent out some stuff from -- that had not 


gone through first or second or third cycle yet 


and it was not highly enriched, so I know that 


they sent out to Metropolis a dilution process 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

258 

to be able to utilize that. I've -- I'm 


wondering if we got any information on that 


because --


 DR. ZIEMER: Do you know what form that was in, 


other than these forms here, you mean? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Yes, it was a -- it was a 


different form. It was after the process of 


dissolving the fuel down. But it's -- it had 


not gone through first or second or third cycle 


because -- to be cleaned up because it was not 


enriched enough to be able to utilize that, so 


it was sent out to be able to ru-- to be run 


through there with their feed stock to go into 


the cleanup process, and this was in the early 


-- early '70s and late '60s. So I was just 


wondering if the -- if -- if NIOSH had looked 


at any of -- any of the other products that 


came in from other sites, say Hanford or Idaho. 


It seems like we had a tendency to do that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Again I would ask whether that 


would change this recommendation at all. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we've said that for 


products that would have other constituents in 


it, you know, other radionuclides besides 


uranium, we can't -- we don't feel like we can 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

259 

reconstruct --


 DR. ZIEMER: They're saying --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the internal dose 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- they can't reconstruct dose 


anyway, so that --


 MR. HINNEFELD: The external dose should be 


appropriate to be measured by the monitoring 


devices they used, we believe. We can't -- we 


can't reconstruct the internal doses from 


things other than uranium, so the things other 


than uranium that would have come in with that 


material we can't reconstruct anyway, so our 


evaluation wouldn't be changed by that 


information. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Okay, I understand. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I guess the way I'm looking at it 


is unless the plutonium and other materials 


came in after '76, it doesn't appear that it 


would change this recommendation. At least 


that's how I read it. And is -- in this case, 


is the '76 date -- is that established by the ­

- either the contract or the DOL? Pete, can 


you speak to that? Do you know in this 


particular case, is that -- '76 is locked in, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

260 

you know --


 MR. TURCIC: That -- well, it's not locked in 


if we get information that's material and that 


there was a contract at a later date that went 


beyond that, we could expand that date. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Could expand, so that doesn't 


close the door if --


 MR. TURCIC: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- if --

 MR. TURCIC: But if it came from Paducah -- you 

know, if it came from Paducah after Paducah 


became USEC, that wouldn't be DOE. So that 


would just be a commercial operation and... 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, I'd like to just get on the 


record that -- is -- is the NIOSH 


recommendation for the entire covered period? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. And -- and if that period was 


to be changed, it would need to be changed by 


DOL and DOE, not NIOSH or this Board. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and if it were changed, I 


-- now we may really want to look at what we 


know about those years. You know, we have no 


non-uranium bioassay data up through 1976, 


because that's what we evaluated. If the -- if 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 -- 

261 

the -- if the covered period is changed, if 


there's a contract in the 1990s, for instance, 


and there -- so that is added, then it would 


still take us to look in 1990 -- do we have 


non-uranium data in 1990, because that was not 


part of what we looked at at this time. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. So in fact that wouldn't 


affect this recommendation for an SEC at this 


point. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Other comments 


or questions? 


 (No responses) 


Okay. Thank you, Stu. Board members, do you 


wish to make a recommendation on this 


particular petition at this time? 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


(Pause) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda and Jim are in collusion 


here, I think, for some reason. They're trying 


to see who's going to make the recommendation. 


 DR. MELIUS: No, no -- being requested. 
I 


already have my second, though. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Wanda is -- is going to make 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

262

 DR. MELIUS: I would -- oh, go ahead. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Jim's ready to recommend whatever 


you say, Wanda. 


 MS. MUNN: That's nice. 


 DR. MELIUS: Save it, right? 


 MS. MUNN: I would like to move that the worker 


at Allied Chemical Corporation who are covered 


by the Special Exposure Cohort -- that's before 


us today, Petition Number 00067, be granted 


Special Exposure Cohort status in accordance 


with the stipulations of that SEC petition. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And seconded? 

 DR. MELIUS: I second it. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And this again the Chair will 

interpret as being with the caveat that the 


exact wording of the motion will come before us 


for a final look tomorrow. 


 DR. MELIUS: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: In a similar fashion as the other 


items that we've agreed to earlier in this 


meeting. 


Are you ready then to vote on this petition? 


 DR. WADE: Could I -- could I raise a qualif-- 


just a clarifying point? We do have this issue 


of -- of workers who were monitored or should 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

263 

have been monitored, and I -- I haven't heard 


discussion on that, or resolution of that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let me comment on that, Stu, 


and then you can comment on it. I -- it would 


seem to me that, since we're arguing that dose 


cannot be reconstructed because of the internal 


issue, we can argue that those should have been 


monitored for internal and weren't and 


therefore meet the criteria. That's my initial 


reaction. Help me understand that if that 


doesn't make sense. I mean --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- yes, they were monitored, but 


not completely monitored is sort of... 


 DR. MELIUS: If they --


 MR. HINNEFELD: We have a population of workers 


who were monitored for uranium, effectively. 


Okay? And it's a pretty -- a pretty robust 


set. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean a pretty high 


percentage. There may be other workers who 


were not, where we have these people -- you 


know, no monitoring performed. And so the 


question then becomes did they correctly not 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

264 

monitor certain people, and this -- we'd do -- 


what we'd have to do -- we'd have to learn some 


more about the plant. Was there, for instance, 


an administration building. Was there an 


administration building somewhat remote from 


the plant that people didn't leave the 


administration building. And if the 


characterization of the site was sufficient, 


you would say well, okay, people in the 


administration building maybe wouldn't need to 


be monitored. So there's a opportunity for 


that. 


 I'm not saying that there's anybody like that. 


I'm saying that, unlike Harshaw where we're 


pretty clear that we wouldn't today say that 


people who worked at Harshaw shouldn't have 


been monitored, we may today say that there may 


be jobs at Metropolis where people don't need 


to be monitored. So it's just an op-- it's a 


possibility that I wanted to -- you know, to 


mention, not a definitive statement that there 


are some people there who shouldn't have been 


monitored. I didn't mean to say that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Jim, and then -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. Yeah, my understanding is 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

265 

that we'll hear Pete Turcic and the Department 


of Labor will be presenting tomorrow and -- 


morning, and my understanding was that we were 


going to wait before we finalized our -- our, 


you know, letters until after we'd had a chance 


to discuss some of these issues -- at least 


generally and maybe specifically -- for these 


sites with -- with Pete, so... 


 DR. WADE: That's fine. 


 MR. KLINGHAMMER: Also I'd like to ask if our 


security guards are part as covered employees. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, as -- as a general rule, 


security guards -- our view of security guards 


is they're exposed. You know, security guards 


sometimes in the DOE system weren't 


particularly -- weren't necessarily badged or 


monitored the same way the production workers 


were. As a general rule, security workers, 


security guards were exposed. 


 MR. KLINGHAMMER: Okay, so they would be 


covered in --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, that's true, even if -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Again, that's not my decision. 


 DR. ZIEMER: They might not have been employed 


by --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

266

 MR. HINNEFELD: It's not my decision. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Security guards are often employed 


by, you know, Wackenhut or somebody -- 


 MR. KLINGHAMMER: They are Wackenhut. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, how about that? That was a 


shot in the dark, but they're -- they're not 


employed -- so -- so what's -- what's the 


impact of that, Pete? 


 MR. TURCIC: Since it's an AWE, any 


subcontractors are not covered. That's 


statutory. There is just no way around it. 


 MR. KLINGHAMMER: Okay. Given that, how about 


our sampling plant that was run by a 


contractor, Lucius Pitkins*, up to what year, 


(unintelligible), '78? 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 MR. KLINGHAMMER: It was a contractor that run 


the sampling plant. It was not Allied 


Chemical. 


 MR. TURCIC: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Pete can put -- put that on the 


record on the mike here. 


 MR. TURCIC: Again, for AWEs, only employees of 


the AWE are covered, and that's a statutory 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

267 

requirement that -- just cannot get around, so 


no subcontractors are covered at AWEs. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I have a question, please. Were 


your -- when did Wackenhut pick up your 


security contract? 


 MR. KLINGHAMMER: Wackenhut -- it used to be 


Burns, so it's --


 MR. PRESLEY: Oh, okay. 


 MR. KLINGHAMMER: -- always been a 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. PRESLEY: So it has been a -- it's always 


been a --


 MR. KLINGHAMMER: It's always been external, 


yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Thank you, sir. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Was there another question? 


 (No responses) 


Okay. The implication here is that there -- 


there might be some words in the actual final 


document that address this issue of "or should 


have been monitored". Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that -- that language 


also comes from the statute in the 


establishment of the original -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

268

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the statutory --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- defined classes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. We'll now vote. All in 


favor of this motion -- the motion is to 


approve the SEC -- say aye -- well, raise your 


hand, we'll get a hand count. 


 (Affirmative responses) 


 The Chair's also voting. It appears to be 


everyone here. 


 Any no’s? 


 (No responses) 


 Any abstentions? 


 (No responses) 


None? I assume Dr. Poston is not on the line. 


Is that correct? 


 DR. WADE: Correct. And so the vote, for the 


record, is nine zero. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: We need to find out something 


about John. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We have -- we have a public 


comment period this evening, but we have a 


couple of individuals who did wish to make 


public comment that are not going to be able to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

269 

be here this evening, and we want to afford 


them the opportunity to speak. Do we know who 


they are? 


 DR. WADE: One's --


 DR. ZIEMER: Mary Beth -- is it Mary Beth? 


Okay. And is there another one also, do you 


know? 


 DR. WADE: I don't know. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, go ahead, Mary Beth. 


 MS. CHARLEY: My name's Mary Beth Charley. I'm 


here on behalf of my father, Robert, who worked 


at Blockson. We've heard so much about the 


dose reconstructions inside the building, 


outside the building, in Florida, in Joliet. 


We've heard absolutely nothing about the four 


retention ponds that were there that these men 


had to stand there with rifles and guard. I've 


heard absolutely nothing about that. And this 


is my -- just a little comment I'd like to 


make. This has been going on now for almost 


seven years. 


Most times you're given a specific amount of 


time in order to produce your records or you're 


held responsible. If they can't produce the 


records from '55 to '58 and this has been going 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

270 

on for seven years, how much longer will it go 


on? Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. And could somebody 


help me understand the retention pond issue 


further. Is -- was that -- is this a retention 


pond that's holding the -- the tailings or what 


-- what is the issue on the retention ponds, do 


we know? 


 Larry, okay. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Unfortunately Brant Ulsh and Tom 


Tomes have left, and they were the ones who 


might have been aware of this. I am not aware 


of the retention ponds. We'll check --


 DR. ZIEMER: But since we --


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- into this. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- are going to be reviewing 


Blockson further, perhaps we can ask that any 


issues relating to that -- it's not obvious to 


me whether that would be included if there were 


an SEC or if it's included if there's not an 


SEC. It's par-- it's on the site. Is that 


correct? 


Okay. Thank you. Was there someone else that 


wished to make a comment? 


 (No responses) 

271 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

DOL PROGRAM UPDATE
 

MR. PETER TURCIC, DOL
 

Okay. We are a bit ahead of schedule and since 


there are members of the Board that were hoping 


tomorrow to -- to be able to catch planes in 


the late afternoon, it -- it is possible that ­

- and I believe Pete has agreed that if we have 


the time we would proceed with the report from 


Department of Labor. It's on our agenda for 


tomorrow morning. But Pete, if you're 


agreeable, without objection from the Board, 


we'll hear the report from -- Department of 


Labor update. 


(Pause) 


 MR. TURCIC: Is it on now? Okay. Just to give 


you a status of -- of where we're at with the 


program, again, just a brief overview. The 


Part B became effective July of 2001 and to 


date, as of November 30th, we've received 


nearly 55,000 claims -- cases, with over 78,000 


claims involved in those cases. Of those, 


35,000 of them are claiming cancer and 22,700­

and-some have been referred to NIOSH for dose 


reconstruction. 


Part E was enacted in 2004 and our regs were 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

272 

issued in June of 2005. And in that program 


we've -- we have about 43,000 cases involving 


58,000 claims. Now we inherited some 25,000 -- 


over 25,000 cases from DOE, which was the old 


Part D program. And that, again, became 


effective in -- in June. 


Now under the two programs now we've been 


getting on the average -- we get about 100 


cases -- new cases a week in Part B and right 


around 200 -- anywhere from 150 to 200 a week 


in Part E. 


 The compensation that has been paid -- we've 


paid a total of $2.4 billion in compensation. 


Of that, $1.8 billion is from Part B, with $1.3 


billion being related to cancer claims and 


another $212 million -- $212 million were RECA 


claims under the Radiation Exposure 


Compensation Act. 


Part E, as -- as you can see, is growing 


rapidly and we're at $519 million in Part E 


already. In fact, the number of cases that we 


have made decisions and paid in in Part E have 


now exceeded the cases in dose reconstruction. 


And then we've paid another $132 million in 


medical benefits. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

273 

The -- the payees, they're -- between the two 


programs there's a total of 26,000 unique 


payees. You know, many payees got -- received 


benefits under B and then also received 


benefits under E, but uniquely -- 26,000 unique 


payees have received EEOICPA benefits to date. 


Of those, 21,700 are Part B payees with 8,756 


cancer cases; 5,000 cases that are NIOSH case ­

- related cases, and 6,679 RECA payees, and 


4,267 payees under Part E. And you can see the 


percentage that -- you know, that that makes 


up. And as you can see, about 35 percent of 


the -- of the cases had -- are cancer cases, of 


the payees. 


The status of these 35,000 cases, 24,000 have 


final decisions. Then there's another 2,646 


that have a recommended decision, and at the -- 


between a recommended decision and awaiting a 


final decision, a little bit over 5,000, the -- 


the cases at NIOSH. And 2,910 are pending 


initial action. 


The result of these final decisions in these 


cancer cases, again, 8,906 approved -- 


approvals, total 15,397 denials. Now if you 


look at the denials, 2,700 of them are for non­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

274 

covered employment and -- you know, that's 


either they worked at a facility -- usually 


it's a facility of -- that is not covered by 


the Act, or it may be that, you know, 


subcontractors at AWE facilities, so that would 


be non-covered employment; 9,052 because the -- 


the product -- the probability of causation was 


less than 50 percent; and 2,200 insufficient 


medical evidence, and 1,130 were non-covered 


conditions. We had a lot of cases filed under 


Part B that it was, you know, just a non-


covered condition. And then there was, under 


Part B, 287 ineligible survivors. 


The status of the cases referred to NIOSH, 


again, nearly 23,000 cases have been referred 


to NIOSH. Seventeen -- you know, nearly 18,000 


have been returned, with 1,239 were withdrawn 


and that's usually -- most of those withdrawn 


cases are for added SECs, so then the case is 


withdrawn from NIOSH; 1,600 and -- 16,481 dose 


reconstructions with currently 937 reworks, and 


I'll talk a little bit more about that, and 


about 5,000 initial referrals at NIOSH. 


The case status, the 15,000 with a dose 


reconstruction, 12,700 have final decisions, so 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

275 

82 percent of the cases that have come back 


with a dose reconstruction have gone through 


the system and are at final decision -- have a 


final decision; 1,900 have a recommended 


decision but no final, and 885 are pending a 


recommended decision. 


For the results of the cases from dose 


reconstruction, here again, approvals 3,708 are 


approvals and 9,033 have been denials. 


The new SECs, we track those and we have a 


process where, you know, we withdraw the cases, 


we -- those that we can establish as part of 


the SEC, we process them. Those that aren't, 


we would, you know, send back to NIOSH. The 


1,222 withdrawn for SEC review, 772 of them 


have final decisions, with 636 approvals and 


136 denials. And 343 have a recommended 


decision but no final decision at this point, 


and 107 are -- are pending. 


The NIOSH -- what we refer to as NIOSH case-


related compensation -- so these would be cases 


that have gone through dose reconstruction or 


cases that were, you know, at a facility that 


then became an SEC, total of $636 million in 


compensation, with 6,240 payees in 4,251 cases. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

276 

Of that, $543 million have been paid on dose 


reconstructed cases and another $93 million so 


far on cases that have been, you know, 


withdrawn and processed under an added SEC. 


These numbers don't include, you know, the five 


-- or the four statutory SECs. That's just the 


-- the new added SECs. 


And I've been asked about these reworks. From 


the inception of the program there's only been 


1,891 cases that have been returned to NIOSH 


for a rework. Now looking at what constitutes 


those -- you know, what was the reason for 


those reworks, well, 1,159 were changes in 


medical condition. Either the case -- a -- an 


additional cancer is identified or, you know, 


sometimes we'll -- you'll have a case where 


it's a unknown primary; we send it to NIOSH for 


a dose reconstruction with an unknown primary. 


Further medical evidence comes in and now we 


know what the primary is, so there's a -- a 


number of reasons. But as you can see, the 


vast, vast majority of cases that are sent back 


for a rework are cases -- the reason for the 


rework is a change in the medical status. And 


of those, only 150 -- 150 of them had come back 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

277 

from NIOSH, would have been an approval, and 


then was sent back for some change in medical 


condition. And the vast majority there, you 


know, over 1,000 of them, were denials that 


were being sent back for a rework to see if -- 


if the -- you know, that then changed the 


outcome. And the outcome -- it's been running 


about 25 percent. When we -- when we send a 


case -- when we send cases back to NIOSH for a 


rework, overall -- the overall statistics, and 


it's been holding right at about 25 percent of 


them will -- you know, they'll be returned to 


NIOSH -- it would have been a denial, returned 


to NIOSH, comes back and it flips from a noncompensable to compensable in about -- about a 


quarter of the time. Another 607 are 


employment-related issues. We either find 


additional employment, usually. You know, in 


543 cases we found additional employment and so 


the case had to go back for a -- a rework. 


Thirty-four of them were administrative. 


Could be that the -- several things there would 


be -- you know, if we found a new -- an 


additional survivor, for example. We have to 


send it back because to give the additional 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

278 

survivor that was just -- you know, just came 


forward the opportunity to do the -- for NIOSH 


to do the interview and so forth. And so --


and again, there's only been 34 cases. And 


only 91 have involved technical issues. So 


from -- from the program inception to date, 


there's only been 91 cases that involved a 


technical issue that was sent back for a 


rework. 


Now one thing on there that I do see and we do 


see and have a concern that is really looming 


in the future, and I mean we're starting to get 


-- and as you know, our process -- NIOSH gives 


us a dose reconstruction, we issue a 


recommended decision, that goes to the 


claimant. The claimant has the opportunity at 


that point -- in fact, the only point that the 


claimant has the oppor-- that's the first point 


that the oppor-- claimant has an opportunity to 


file an objection on, you know, anything in the 


case, including the dose reconstruction. And 


we're getting an awful lot of -- we're starting 


to get a lot of objections filed based on 


issues that are before the Board. And what's 


looming is they're not being resolved. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

279

 In our regulation, in -- in a year, a -- if we 


do not issue a final decision within one year, 


then the recommended decision becomes affirmed. 


Well, if we can't address, you know, the 


objection because the issue is still 


unresolved, you know, with the Board and NIOSH, 


then we have no choice but to send that -- that 


case back. And there are, you know, 


ramifications, you know, to that. So we do 


see that looming. That is a ever-growing 


prospect, and I would just, you know, urge the 


Board to, you know, come to resolution because 


-- on issues because, you know, there are 


consequences to, you know, not having 


resolutions. I mean these -- there are real 


cases out there that are really dependent upon 


resolution of those issues. 


And with that, I'd be happy to take any 


questions. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Pete. Pete, on your 


fourth slide where you showed the number of 


NIOSH case payees, these are Part B payees, 


would -- would that number -- it was 5,035, 


does that include the SEC -- 


 MR. TURCIC: No. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

280

 DR. ZIEMER: -- payees, or is that just the DR 


-- dose reconstruction? 


 MR. TURCIC: That would be the DR. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Jim Melius. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. I like your new color 

scheme for your slides. Maybe NIOSH needs -- 


you know, we've had this yellow and blue and 


white for a long time. We need a -- maybe a 


change here. 


I -- I have a question on the -- as you just 


brought up on the rework -- actually a number 


of questions, but could you give an example of 


an issue that's waiting for the Board to 


resolve, 'cause this is the first I believe 


I've -- we've heard of it, so -- 


 MR. TURCIC: Okay. We'll --


 DR. MELIUS: -- this is an issue, so I mean I'd 


like to have more detail so we can try to 


address it and figure out how we -- also 


communicate so we know that -- you know, what ­

- what is being held up and -- and so forth. 


 MR. TURCIC: Well, one -- one example is, you 


know, someone can file a -- you know, there are 


issues related to like Rocky Flats. 


 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

281

 MR. TURCIC: Okay. So we have cases that are 


hanging there, and the objection is that NIOSH 


did the dose reconstruction in one way and 


there were issues that are involved -- 


 DR. MELIUS: With the -- yeah. 


 MR. TURCIC: -- that are unresolved, so we're 


going to have no choice -- and those are really 


approaching a year, and they also involve new 


cases coming in. You know, for consistency, we 


can't let those -- so -- so that's why I'm 


saying it's --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah. 


 MR. TURCIC: -- it's really the water building 


behind the dam. 


 DR. MELIUS: But -- but -- but are they all SEC 


issues? I guess I'm -- 


 MR. TURCIC: No. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- trying to identify 'cause -- 

 MR. TURCIC: No, a lot of them are -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Sounds like they're DR issues, but 

--

 MR. TURCIC: Most of them are site profile 

issues. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, but they involve individual 

dose reconstructions or SEC cases? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

282

 MR. TURCIC: They involve --

 DR. ZIEMER: Or both? 

 MR. TURCIC: You see, what happens, Paul, is 

the individual will get a dose reconstruction 


based on --


 DR. ZIEMER: So it is a --


 MR. TURCIC: -- a site profile --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- DR case. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. TURCIC: -- and then they file an objection 


at the FAB based on the issues that are, you 


know, being --


 DR. MELIUS: Oh, okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I guess there's --


 MR. TURCIC: -- identified for --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- cases out there that -- where 


there's kind of a time clock running, and I -- 


this is the first I've heard of it. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm wondering -- and do you make 


NIOSH aware of those cases, like, you know, 


case number such-and-such is going to be closed 


on a certain date if we don't have this 


decision and --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 -- 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

283

 MR. TURCIC: The -- the way we do that now is 


we've been trying to hold onto them until, you 


know, there is resolution. So there's a lot of 


back and forth between us and NIOSH on is there 


resolution on this particular issue. You know, 


if -- if a case comes through that -- that the 


-- that issue is not going to address, we move 


it forward. But if -- if there's an issue 


that's being worked on, and in discussions 


between the staff -- you know, DOL staff and 


NIOSH staff -- if there is no resolution -- 


yeah, and then we -- we do say well, you know, 


this is approaching a year and we're going to 


have to send it back. And this is -- this is a 


growing thing that --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I'm just wondering as we 


look forward do -- do we need to be made 


cognizant of what issues these are and the 


numbers of cases being affected and -- so that 


 MR. TURCIC: Sure. 

 DR. MELIUS: Could --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- I mean we're operating I guess 

in sort of -- oblivious of this -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 -- 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

284

 DR. ZIEMER: -- occurrence. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- what might be a way of 


addressing this is if we could at least, for 


our next meeting, have a snapshot of -- 


 MR. TURCIC: I'll be glad to (unintelligible) ­

-


 DR. MELIUS: -- yeah, yeah, of those that -- 


that would categorize them in broad categ-- 


'cause at this --


 DR. ZIEMER: Just an idea of the kind of issues 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 MR. TURCIC: That can --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and numbers of cases involved 


and --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, 'cause --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- if there's actions that we can 


take, either on an interim basis or permanently 


-- and I don't know, Larry, if you have any 


guidance for us on that, but we certainly want 


to help -- if -- if we -- if we're -- if we 


need to do something to assist NIOSH on that 


issue, we need to be aware of it. 


 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, this is an emerging issue 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

285 

that we've been made aware of just recently, as 


Pete says. When we talk -- when we talk about 


this interaction between NIOSH and DOL, what we 


-- what we're trying to communicate in that -- 


those interactions are have we at NIOSH taken 


up something we've heard in the Board's 


deliberation and made an adjustment. And if we 


have made an adjustment, we let them know that 


so that they can move that -- that piece 


forward. If we haven't made an adjustment 


because it's still unresolved in our minds, 


then we tell them that. And what I'm hearing 


Pete tell me in these -- in the latest 


interactions on this is that we're going to see 


a lot of claims come back to us that we're 


going to have to start, you know, attending to 


and -- and answering questions about and -- and 


unfortunately for the claimants, not see any 


progress on until we have a resolution of the 


issue. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So it sounds like you're trying to 


hold off as long as you can, but at some point 


you've got to do something. 


 MR. TURCIC: It's -- it's getting to the point, 


Paul -- we tried to hold off, but we're under 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 -- 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

286 

this one-year thing. And you know, I mean if 


it gets affirmed, then it could go to District 


Court, and they're just going to send it back 


anyhow because it's unresolved. But it's 


starting to become large enough that -- you 


know, I can't go up to the line on the one 


year. You know, so that's going to have to 


start back-- backing off a little bit. But --


but I'd be glad at the next meeting to give you 


a -- a snapshot of what they are. 


 DR. WADE: Pete, just so I -- I understand. So 


with the clock running and approaching a year, 


your options then are to send it back to NIOSH. 


 MR. TURCIC: It's -- that-- that's the only 


option I have. 


 DR. WADE: The only option you have. And then 


 MR. TURCIC: But Lew, it -- it affects -- that 


would be disingenuous if I only sent those back 


that approached a year. I mean once the first 


case approaches a year, I've got to send them 


all back, even the new ones that come, that 


suffer the same -- the same thing. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Thank you. 


 DR. MELIUS: You know, I -- I think if we had a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

287 

snapshot -- I mean -- 


 MR. TURCIC: Yeah, that'll be -- okay. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- let's work on it to -- together 


-- the extent that we -- we can. On -- on the 


reworks, I believe -- and this may be part of 


the same discussion because it may be somewhat 


related, but is -- I think at one point you 


sort of gave us a snapshot -- this may have 


been a couple of years ago -- on the -- I think 


we asked for the technical rework categories 


just to get a handle 'cause in somewhat -- ways 


those are -- may relate to some of the issues 


that we're also evaluating in our dose re-- 


individual dose reconstruction -- 


 MR. TURCIC: Yeah. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- reviews and I think it'd be 


useful to know what those are. And I think it 


would also be useful as part of understanding 


the -- sort of the quality assurance/quality 


control for this overall program is -- I mean 


the reworks are the ones you send back. You 


may review a number of others, you know. 
I 


don't think the Board's interested in the 


administrative or the medical or the -- 


 MR. TURCIC: Right, I understand. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

288

 DR. MELIUS: -- employment issues as those come 


up, but certainly where there are, you know, 


technical issues that you're -- you're focusing 


on possibly as a result of a rework going back 


or -- or what you're getting back from NIOSH, I 


think it would be useful for the -- the Board 


to have in terms of -- we're trying to make our 


dose reconstruction review, you know, 


productive, useful. I don't think the two 


programs should mirror each other, but -- but 


hopefully they complement each other, but also 


we don't want to duplicate activities and so 


forth. So having an idea of what's one -- what 


is in your technical -- your reworks that are 


sent back technically. Also, you know, what -- 


what's your way of focus-- are these coming 


from -- how you identify them, I guess is what 


we're -- we're looking -- would be -- might be 


useful to us. 


 MR. TURCIC: We identify them two ways. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 MR. TURCIC: One, we identify them either 


through an objection -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 


 MR. TURCIC: -- you know, that a claimant 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

289 

makes. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 


 MR. TURCIC: Or we identify them on our own in 


that -- frequently what -- what the rework may 


-- may involve is that something was changed in 


a site profile --


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 


 MR. TURCIC: -- in between --


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 


 MR. TURCIC: -- you know, so --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. Yeah. 


 MR. TURCIC: -- so those would be, you know, 


self-identified or --


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. Yeah. I -- I think if we 


had that -- some sort of a -- a breakdown of 


where --


 MR. TURCIC: Yeah. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- those are, I think it'd be -- 


the numbers are a little higher than they -- 


 MR. TURCIC: Yeah. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- they were the last time -- 


 MR. TURCIC: Yeah. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- you gave that to us and I think 


it'd be -- be helpful. If -- somebody else -- 


then I'd like to ask some other questions, but 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

290 

I've been --


 DR. ZIEMER: Go ahead. 


 DR. MELIUS: Go ahead? Okay. The issue we've 


been talking about a little bit earlier with 


Blockson and -- and Allied and so forth is the 


issue of how we, you know, define SEC classes. 


And I think what we're looking for is to make 


that process as -- as efficient and -- and 


workable as possible for ev-- everybody 


involved and that the language we use is 


something that is, you know, useful to you, so 


what -- I think we recognize that you have to 


make that language and -- operational, and 


often that really isn't -- I mean a lot of it's 


individual reviewing individual work histories 


and so forth, while some of it may be -- 


involve -- really as you -- you know, take -- 


spend the time to review the -- sort of the 


employment information and type of information 


that would identify people in the classes, but 


-- but I think it would be helpful to know -- 


for us to know -- one is sort of how you 


interpret some of this language to make sure 


it's -- you know, like the "monitored, or 


should have been monitored" language, make sure 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

291 

that's the correct language to use. May --


maybe on another -- this -- SEC by SEC basis. 


It may be useful for some, not useful for 


others. 


And then -- then secondly, what can we do to 


make this process, you know, work and -- and 


more efficient? How do we get, you know, 


feedback and make sure that, at least on a 


preliminary basis as you look at the SEC, that 


what we're recommending is -- is useful and 


workable. I think we all want to avoid 


confusion and -- and problems -- witness what 


we went through -- I mean trying to discuss 


Blockson today, which is maybe an unusual case, 


but it's certainly something that -- the -- 


where one could see problems if -- if we had 


approved that and... 


 MR. TURCIC: The "monitored, or should have 


been monitored" is always interpreted in 


accordance with current standards. 


 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

 MR. TURCIC: That's first of all. 

 DR. MELIUS: Right. 

 MR. TURCIC: You know, not what was done at any 

particular time. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

292

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 MR. TURCIC: And then basically just, you know, 


based on that, it -- it really goes to the kind 


of occupation characterization that Stu 


mentioned. 


 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 


 MR. TURCIC: You know, if there was a facility 


where there was, you know, an administrative 


building --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 MR. TURCIC: -- and those people weren't 


monitored or shouldn't have been monitored, 


then we would not include those in -- in the 


class. In the example that you were talking 


about -- I mean we have the occupations at 


Metropolis, for example. 


 DR. MELIUS: Right. 


 MR. TURCIC: Apparently there is a lot of 


internal monitoring data. 


 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 


 MR. TURCIC: So that at least tells you what 


occupations and the scope, you know, of who was 


monitored --


 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 


 MR. TURCIC: -- or should have been monitored. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

293

 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 


 MR. TURCIC: Now they weren't monitored for all 


the... 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 MR. TURCIC: And so, you know, based on that, 


we would probably look at those occupations -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 


 MR. TURCIC: -- and say well, okay, these would 


-- or should have been monitored, and anything 


outside of that we would, you know, look on a 


case by case basis and whether it made sense, 


based on what they did, that they should have 


been monitored. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But Pete, this presumes that you 


have some knowledge -- for example, if someone 


is -- let's say they're just a -- no, let's say 


they're a clerk, an administrative clerk in the 


financial office or something. 


 MR. TURCIC: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Unless you know that they don't 


have access to the restricted areas, you can't 


simply say, by job title, well, they shouldn't 


have been monitored anyway -- 


 MR. TURCIC: Well --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- or do you? I mean --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

294

 MR. TURCIC: Well --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- I want to make sure that Labor 


is looking at this the same way we do. I mean 


if -- if we can -- if we can ascertain that 


Building A on a given site -- people cannot go 


from there to Building B because in Building B 


you need a special badge, or there's some 


restriction, and therefore we can exclude that 


in our description --


 MR. TURCIC: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- but I think if -- if we think 


that you can't do that, and you guys are doing 


it based on a title, then I -- I would be 


concerned that we're -- we're not reading the 


same --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 MR. TURCIC: It depends on how you -- and 


that's why it's so important, depends on how 


you write the definition. And it's all -- like 


-- let me give you an example. You have Y-12 


early years. You have it functionally. As I 


said before, when you put something -- you -- 


you put a functional definition in there, that 


is the most difficult to administer. Now -- so 


the way we did that was -- I mean the -- the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

295 

functional definition was uranium enrichment, 


people that were involved in uranium enrichment 


and other radiological activities. We 


translated that into three different groups of 


-- and -- of occupations. The -- the first 


group were groups of, you know, occupations 


where there was no doubt that they would have 


been exposed to -- they were involved in 


uranium enrichment, so any of the occupations, 


any of the buildings, you know -- we said all 


right, if you fall into that category, there's 


nothing else the claims examiner has to look 


at, doesn't have to do any more development 


work. 


Then there was the group down on the other end 


where it raises a question -- cafeteria worker. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. TURCIC: Okay? So what we do there then, 


the claims examiner has to do development work. 


In that group we would ask for -- we would need 


to see some -- some kind of evidence that they 


were in fact in that area, in the area where 


the uranium enrichment was going on. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so you actually ascertain, 


either by affidavit or --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

296

 MR. TURCIC: Well --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- other evidence, that they 


actually not only had the opportunity to go 


into an area, but actually did. 


 MR. TURCIC: Yeah. Now there's the middle 

group, Paul. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MR. TURCIC: There's the middle group, and so ­

- the first group, we don't do any more 


development, we -- we just accept that that was 


-- the other group where, you know, it would 


raise questions -- if a cafeteria worker was 


involved in uranium enrichment activities. 


Then the middle group were people who could be 


assigned anywhere -- mechanics, electricians, 


you know, those kind of things. So what we do 


there is we say -- and we have the claims 


examiner and instructions for the claims 


examiner, in this example, to look in the 


record. Absent information in the record to 


the contrary, you assume that they were in the 


uranium enrichment. 


Now if -- if in the interview they said that 


they were a mechanic and they worked, you know, 


at some other part of the facility or doing 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

297 

something else, then we wouldn't put them in 


that group unless they could show that they 


were, you know, in there for the 250 days. 


So that's how it's done when it's -- when it's 


functionally. Then you have a situation, you 


know, more where it's -- it's buildings, and 


that becomes a lot easier because then you're 


not worried about the occupations. So that --


that's how -- and again, it really comes down 


to --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, that's helpful to know that. 


Jim Lockey, and then Mike. 


 DR. LOCKEY: In the -- in the case of General 


Atomics and NIOSH, at the end of the proposed 


class, listed 15 buildings that they thought 


should be included in the class. 


 MR. TURCIC: Uh-huh. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Is it the Department of Labor's 


position they would accept that list as -- with 


-- actuality the class would be? 


 MR. TURCIC: Okay, we would -- what we would do 


there is we would -- then it becomes an 


empirical evaluation of what is available. If 


we could put people in those individual 


buildings, then fine, that's what we -- we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

298 

would use. Or affidavits -- you know, we use 


more than just -- you know, just the -- the 


employment records. There are facilities -- 


what I said about Blockson -- we can't -- we 


can't put people there so we just assume that 


they -- that if you were at Blockson, you were 


there, you know. Bethlehem Steel, we can't put 


people in the mill that ran the 13 runs or 


whatever it was. If you have employment 


verified at Bethlehem Steel, you were there. 


And so it's -- it's really a -- you know, it's 


really a case by case basis. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's -- that's -- the example 


you gave, that's regardless of job title. 


 MR. TURCIC: Exactly. Exactly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Mike Gibson. 


 MR. GIBSON: What did you say, Mark? I didn't 


hear your question. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Regardless of job --


 MR. GRIFFON: Regardless of job title in that 


last case he's say-- even administra-- even if 


a person had a title as secretary or clerk, 


you'd say we don't know enough about -- 


 MR. TURCIC: If they were at that facility -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- it's a done deal. Right? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

299

 MR. TURCIC: That's it. 


 MR. GIBSON: You're saying it's a done deal, or 


do you ask the person or -- an administrative 


clerk --


 DR. ZIEMER: No, in that case at Bethlehem 


Steel, if they're in Bethlehem Steel -- 


 MR. GIBSON: Well, I'm saying --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- it doesn't matter what the job 

title is. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. GIBSON: It doesn't matter what the job 

title is. 

 MR. GRIFFON: But for other places, it does 

matter. It depends on how we -- we -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- develop it, you know. 


 MR. GIBSON: So like -- I mean you've got an 


administrative clerk that works in a office 


building, that's it. I mean it's full of -- 


you know, mahogany row, but you have 


administrative clerk that works for a manager 


in a radiation building who goes out and gives 


jobs to the foreman every day -- 


 MR. TURCIC: I underst-- yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

300

 MR. TURCIC: And it depends on how you defined 


a class, you know, what we would do. 


 MR. GIBSON: But --

 MR. TURCIC: Exactly right. I mean if it's -- 

 MR. GIBSON: But if a --

 MR. GRIFFON: But then --

 MR. GIBSON: I guess my question is, if DOL 

looks at a job and it's something that -- like 


you mentioned, cafeteria worker, or 


administrative clerk, you don't just 


necessarily assume they shouldn't have been 


monitored. 


 MR. TURCIC: No, what we would do -- now you're 


confusing -- you didn't ask the question about 


monitored. You're -- you're -- you asked -- 


 MR. GIBSON: (Unintelligible) was included. 


 MR. TURCIC: -- (unintelligible), Mike. You 


asked coverage. If you're asking about, you 


know, monitoring, we would have to look at the 


case-specific, you know, situation. You know, 


if it was a facility where there was a 


administrative building and we knew that people 


in that building, you know, weren't monitored 


and shouldn't have been monitoring (sic), you 


know, then we would -- we would go with that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

301 

If it was the situation you're talking about, 


situation like that, in most places, that would 


be monitored and we would assume that the 


administrative people would be monitored. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think the --


 MR. TURCIC: I don't think we've ever -- I -- I 


-- I can't remember a case where -- to be quite 


honest with you, where we have denied the case 


because we said well, we can put you there but 


we can't say that you should have been 


monitored. I don't think there's ever been a 


case -- I mean this --


 MR. GRIFFON: But it -- yeah, do -- do you -- 


this is a broader question, but do you have a ­

- you must have a logic tree that your claims 


processors are working from, and is that 


something that can be shared with the Board or 


no? 


 MR. TURCIC: Well, the logic tree depends on 


how --


 MR. GRIFFON: Because there's --


 MR. TURCIC: -- you define it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- there's all -- yeah, yeah, I 


know. 


 DR. MELIUS: It's devel-- it's buil-- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

302

 MR. TURCIC: Yeah. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

 MR. TURCIC: That's why it's so important, you 

know, and that's why I said, you know, at the 


last time --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. TURCIC: -- I -- I met with you that by a 


spatial determination is a lot easier than a -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: But if -- if you do --


 MR. TURCIC: -- a functional. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I -- I -- I also get 


concerned if we do the building-specific sort 


of specificity in our write-up, if the only 


information you have for that site for 


individuals is job title, then you can have an 


electrician that wa-- and you might even have 


building. You might say the electrician was in 


Building A, but if -- if -- and -- and maybe 


your -- you -- you know -- I mean I guess I 


would be concerned if you don't know enough 


about the facility, you don't know if the 


person worked in that maintenance shop the 


whole time or if they went out to the other 


buildings --


 MR. TURCIC: Mark, we --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

303

 MR. GRIFFON: -- and there may be no records in 


individual's record to show that. 


 MR. TURCIC: Even -- even if it's buildings -- 


okay? Even if it's buildings, then we would 


always consider, you know, functions like 


maintenance, electricians -- you know, things 


like that -- we always assume that they might 


have been assigned anywhere, and that gets 


factored in. So more than likely what would 


happen -- you know, I mean -- every way I -- I 


can think that, you know, you could define a 


class, what would happen with that class of 


people would be this idea that, absent 


information to the contrary, we would say that 


these occupations are covered. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Mike, does that answer your 

question? 

 MR. GIBSON: No, I think -- I'm still -- so you 

basically have a set of job titles and, absent 


any information -- if we go building-specific, 


absent any information, you'd say yes, these 


people are probably covered. 


 MR. TURCIC: That's what we did, and that's how 


we'll be handling the later Y-12, exactly. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Except for --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

304

 MR. GIBSON: My point is, again, if it's even 


building-specific, there's some sites that have 


say administrative clerks, for example again, 


that worked 40 hours a week in that rad 


building for a manager who also has a -- 


 MR. TURCIC: If -- if they worked in the rad 


building, that was a covered building, they're 


covered, no matter what their occupation was. 


 MR. GIBSON: But I -- I thought you just said 


there was almost like a -- 


 MR. TURCIC: No, I'm saying that -- I'm saying 


for -- for occupations, but you can't put them 


in that building. If you do it by building and 


we can put them in that building, they're in, 


no matter what occupation. But you take 


somebody like a maintenance person who may not 


be in -- you know, maybe we can't put him in 


that specific building, but knowing that 


maintenance people are assigned all over the 


place -- absent information in the file, you 


know, that they were somewhere else and not in 


that building -- we would assume that they 


could have been assigned in that building and 


worked in that building. 


 MR. GIBSON: So an administrative clerk or 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

305 

someone like that would have to put in their 


affidavit or in their claim that they worked in 


a rad building. 


 MR. TURCIC: Yeah, and then if they didn't, you 


know, we still don't cut them off. We give the 


opportunity for them to explain well, yeah, I'm 


here -- my duties required me to go all over, 


you know. I mean it's not like -- it's not 


like you're cut off and have no opportunity. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Jim, additional 


question or --


 DR. MELIUS: No, I'm sorry, I -- yeah, I guess 

I --

 MR. GRIFFON: Go ahead. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, now that he -- now that I 

ask --

 DR. MELIUS: Mark wanted to say something. Or 

-- or is our process, in terms of getting input 


from you and -- in terms of these issues -- I 


mean -- and I think we've talked before, it's 


certainly helpful to have somebody in -- 


involved from DOL as we're deliberating this, 


particularly if we're -- I guess if we're 


considering sort of a -- a non-buildingspecific or what may be a problematic way of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

306 

making designation -- I'm particularly get 


concerns when we start getting some of these 


big sites that -- where we may not -- we may -- 


doing a very specific types of -- of SECs that 


could very well be process-oriented or 


something. I mean that may -- 


 MR. TURCIC: Well --


 DR. MELIUS: -- building -- I mean that -- that 


we need to be careful about how we go forward 


and -- you know, terms of making these 


definitions and so forth. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think Pete -- 


 MR. TURCIC: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You said building-specific is a 


little easier for you to administer. 


 MR. TURCIC: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think on the -- we had the -- 


what was the process, the -- at Los Alamos. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) RaLa. 


 MR. GRIFFON: RaLa, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, the -- the RaLa, yeah, that 


was a process-oriented definition. Is that --


that causes you more -- 


 MR. TURCIC: Well, no, that was an area. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, it also was co-- coincident 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 -- 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

307 

with an area, so it was a little easier. 


 MR. TURCIC: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But you could have one described 


in that way that maybe involved multiple parts 


of the site --


 MR. TURCIC: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- that's a little different, but 


typically even there it brings certain 


buildings into play. 


 MR. TURCIC: I -- I would suggest, Paul, that 


maybe the process is disjointed. I mean you 


really have two parts to the process. One, 


what doses can't you reconstruct. Now once you 


identify that, then you have a process of how 


best to define the class so you cover the 


individuals that were exposed to that dose, and 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, in fact that's exactly the 


issue we have on several of these. We've 


identified, or NIOSH has identified, that they 


cannot reconstruct internal thorium doses, for 


example. Now, can you ex-- but to what extent 


can you exclude others from that? In some 


cases, not very well. 


 MR. TURCIC: Right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

308

 DR. ZIEMER: On the other hand, like in General 


Atomics, if you had your cafeteria worker and 


you knew there was a cafeteria and it's not one 


of those listed buildings, then you -- they 


would have to show you that somehow their job 


required them, for example, to deliver 


sandwiches to the reactor building or 


something. 


 MR. TURCIC: Exactly. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 MR. TURCIC: Exactly. 


 DR. WADE: One question, Pete. These words 


that we bandy about that say "were monitored, 


or should have been monitored," these words 


give you difficulty? Should the Board steer 


clear of those words? What do you -- what's 


your thought? 


 MR. TURCIC: They -- they don't give us any 


difficulty at all. Like I'm saying -- I mean 


here -- here's where they came from. What it 


came from was the original statutory SECs that 


basically said that you were either monitored 


or had an exposure similar to individuals who 


were monitored. Well, that's totally 


impossible to administer, you know, without a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

309 

policy. And so that policy is what got shifted 


into monitored or should have been monitored -- 


 DR. WADE: Just to --


 MR. TURCIC: -- then assuming anyone who should 


have been monitored under current day 


requirements. 


 DR. WADE: A very specific example, if I might. 


I mean on Allied Chemical, we have a definition 


in front of us that says all AWE employees who 


were monitored, or should have been monitored, 


for exposure to ionizing radiation while 


working at Allied Chemical Plant in Metropolis, 


Illinois, period. Another way you could write 


that is all AWE workers who worked at Allied 


Chemical Plant. 


 MR. TURCIC: That -- they mean the same thing, 


exactly. 


 DR. WADE: They mean the same thing. 


 MR. TURCIC: The "monitored and should have 


been monitored" really plays a more important 


role when you're talking about a DOE facility. 


And the reason it comes there is you don't want 


to drag in -- I don't think you're talking 


about including the delivery of -- you know, 


the person that -- that's coming in and -- once 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

310 

a week and filling up the Coke machines. 


 DR. WADE: Uh-huh, right. 


 MR. TURCIC: And they typically wouldn't be 


monitored, and so, you know, that's how -- how 


that would be ex-- excluded. 


 DR. WADE: Just one more --


 MR. GRIFFON: So you --


 DR. WADE: -- questions --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you don't make a subjective 


determination on monitored or should have been 


monitored based on the current radiological 


standards. You really just say that equals 


presence. 


 MR. TURCIC: Yeah, exactly. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: But now when Stu was talking to us, 


he sort of raised this issue as an important 


issue. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: And now I get the sense that maybe 


it's not an important issue. So I just want to 


make sure we're clear before the Board takes an 


action. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I hate to -- am I on 


here? I really hate to confuse the Board 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

311 

'cause I'm so confused myself, but there are 


clear differences between the Harshaw Plant and 


the Allied Plant in terms of what we know and 


what the condition of the plant was and things 


like that, and I only pointed that out. I in 


no way intended to infer that I have any 


expertise at all in this area, how to 


administer the class. I just thought that I 


would point those out in my own way, and I 


don't -- you know, this is not my bailiwick. 


believe I said that. 


 DR. WADE: Well, thank you. So -- so --


 MR. GRIFFON: But -- but --


 DR. WADE: -- Pete, in terms of Allied, if I 


could finish, it makes no difference to you, in 


terms of the way you would move forward, 


whether those words appear or not. 


 MR. TURCIC: Not at Allied, no. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So "monitored, or should have been 


monitored" really refers to the -- the people 


who work there, as opposed to somebody coming 


in casually --


 MR. TURCIC: Exactly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- a visitor or --


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

312

 MR. TURCIC: Exactly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Here comes Jim. Jim, did 


you have another --


 DR. LOCKEY: Yeah, I just -- I just want to 


make -- make it so it's clear in my mind. If ­

- if -- in the General Atomics report, if NIOSH 


says Building 30, Building 31 and Building 26, 


27 should be included in the class, you don't 


go back and second-judge that. You don't go 


back and say we're going to look at those 


buildings separately. You accept that -- is in 


the petition as people that should be included 


in that class. Is that correct? 


 MR. TURCIC: That's exactly right. Then --


then what we do is we start looking and see -- 


okay, now how and what information do we have 


to say they worked in, you know, any of those 


buildings. And then that's an empirical type 


analysis for a while until we can figure out 


what is available. We may come to the 


conclusion that we can't separate them out and 


we, through policy, say, you know, presence 


equals -- in those buildings, that presence at 


this facility equals those buildings. There 


may be time frames, you know, maybe at some 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

313 

time frames you can split it up and some time 


frames you can't. But no, we don't -- we 


administer whatever the Secretary of HHS 


issues. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Larry. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Pete, I think it might be helpful 


for the Board and for the public at large to 


know that each one of these classes that is 


designated by the Secretary of HHS -- once you 


receive that class designation, you process 


what I think you call a Technical Bulletin that 


goes out to your claims examiners on how to 


administer that class -- 


 MR. TURCIC: Right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- and there are -- I don't know 


how many of these have been generated up to 


this point in time, but I'm aware of the ones 


for Y-12, Mallinckrodt, et cetera. Maybe 


that's something that you might want to make 


available to the Board. I don't know how -- 


how you'd do that, but these exist -- I mean 


they may --


 MR. TURCIC: They're on our web site, Larry. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay, they're on the web site. 


 MR. TURCIC: Yeah, they're on our web site, but 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

314 

I'd be -- I'd be glad to walk you through, you 


know, each one of them, give you copies of each 


one of them, the directions that we give to our 


claims examiners --


 DR. ZIEMER: Maybe an -- maybe an example next 


time would be useful --


 DR. MELIUS: I -- I've got an example with me, 


if I can -- someone wants to make a copy and 


distribute it. 


 DR. WADE: Pete, one --


 DR. MELIUS: I've got -- I actually -- a couple 


of them with me, so... 


 DR. WADE: One more very important issue for at 


least me to understand, and I -- and I think 


maybe the Board, is this issue that we've been 


talking about recently of what NIOSH can do and 


what they can't do. So for example, let's take 


occupational medical dose where NIOSH said we 


can do that. 


 MR. TURCIC: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Is it important that what they can 


do be included in the designation? 


 MR. TURCIC: Makes it a lot easier to -- for 


claimants to understand. You know, if -- if 


the designation comes out and says all we can 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

315 

do is medical X-rays, then if it's -- you know, 


if that's included, that makes it a lot clearer 


to the claimant when they get a dose 


reconstruction for a non-specified cancer, you 


know, only based on medical X-rays. 


 DR. WADE: So if NIOSH is saying, for example, 


as we've done today, that we can do all 


external dose, we can do internal for uranium, 


we can do occupational medical, all of that 


should be in the designation that the Secretary 


issues and therefore in the Board's 


recommendation to the Secretary. Okay. Thank 


you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments? Jim, did you have 


an additional comment? No, okay. 


 Mr. Miller? 


 MR. MILLER: Richard Miller. I just have a 


question about this interchange here 'cause 


this is a very important issue, and I want to 


make sure that when you nodded, Pete, that we 


understood what you were saying. When you said 


a moment ago, as I understood it, well, it's 


very important for us to put in the designation 


what dose we can reconstruct, so let's go 


through this -- you know, we can do all the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

316 

external, then we get to the internal, then you 


say we should sort out which internal dose we 


can reconstruct and which internal dose we 


can't reconstruct. Okay, now we're getting 


into process-specific, not building-specific, 


designations. So now we're into that tricky 


issue we got into with Y-12 where they say you 


can reconstruct the uranium dose but not the 


thorium dose. So then the question is who's a 


thorium worker and who's not a thorium worker. 


And then you have the great irony, which is 


without being able to say who's a thorium 


worker and who's not a thorium worker, or who 


should have been monitored for thorium or not 


monitored for thorium, you'd wind up, I would 


think, with almost an administratively-


impossible class to adjudicate unless you 


provide broad presumptions. And so the 


question is, why would you want to narrow the 


isotopes that you can monitor or not monitor 


for in a class and -- and -- if you want to 


have clarity about the boundaries? 


 MR. TURCIC: I think -- I think you're -- you 


know, I -- I think you're looking at this -- I 


-- I don't think the way you're looking at 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

317 

this, Richard, is the way it works. 


 DR. ZIEMER: No, Pete -- Pete wasn't saying 


that they --


 MR. TURCIC: I'm saying regardless -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- pay attention to that. Pete 


was saying that that helps the claimant 


understand, if they go back and NIOSH says, for 


example, we can only reconstruct your medical 


dose and --


 MR. TURCIC: Richard, just because the 


designation -- let's say the designation said, 


you know, includes, you know, the -- the write-


up says here's what we can do, that doesn't 


take it away if you meet the class definition 


based on that facility, regardless -- if you 


have a presumptive cancer, if you have one of 


the 22 cancers, you're awarded benefits. Where 


that becomes important is when we take those 


who don't have one of the 22 cancers, we send 


it for a dose reconstruction, it becomes 


important so that the claimant understands 


okay, in this case they did include the 


internal uranium, but they didn't include 


anything for the thorium; so my exposure was 


higher, but it did include the inhalation of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

318 

the uranium. 


 MR. MILLER: Okay. Have you issued the 


guidance yet for the second Y-12 class, the 


claims examiner guidance? 


 MR. TURCIC: We're in the process of doing it 


now. 


 MR. MILLER: Okay, 'cause that would help 


understand exactly the explanation here, 'cause 


what -- 'cause when we looked at the earlier Y12 class -- of course you weren't grappling 


with that issue 'cause it was only uranium 


enrichment in that time period, but -- but what 


-- what was a bit confusing there was that, for 


example, those who were not presumed to be in 


the Y-12 Calutron operations were construction, 


were machinists, were security guards, for 


example, where the burden of proof is then 


going to shift to them to sort of show they 


were in there. And I guess the question that I 


had was is there an irony here that's been 


created? And let me just pose the question. 


The -- the irony that I'm questioning is, is it 


possible that we could have people who were put 


in a class because there's not enough data with 


which to reconstruct their dose, regardless of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

319 

whether it's internal or external, but for 


which there's also insufficient data for them 


to put them in the Calutron building or in the 


RaLa area. In other words, could you have the 


irony that you could be put in a class, but 


lack the proof to show you were physically 


there 'cause the same lack of data catches you. 


 MR. TURCIC: Any time you draw a line, Richard, 


there's going to be people on one side of that 


line or the other. I mean any line that you 


draw, whether it be --


 MR. MILLER: So are you saying that the 


incompleteness of data about being able to show 


you were in Building X -- in other words, 


affirmative proof evidence that you were there 


-- construction workers particularly face this 


challenge. 


 MR. TURCIC: Okay. 


 MR. MILLER: So a construction worker says I'm 


in the RaLa area 'cause he files a claim, but 


he has no contemporaneous evidence to establish 


proof that he or she was there, are they in the 


RaLa area or out of the RaLa area? That would 


be the kind of question I'm posing. 


 MR. TURCIC: We -- we haven't -- on that one, I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

320 

-- I can't say because, you know, we haven't 


worked out the specifics and don't know -- you 


know, there are other records. Like for 


example, we contract with the Center to Protect 


Workers Rights. Lot of times we can't put a 


construction worker -- you know, all we know 


and all the survivor knows is that a 


construction worker worked for some 


construction company. Now the records we get 


from Center to Protect Workers Rights would 


come back that maybe dispatch workers that show 


that okay, this (unintelligible) -- this 


individual worker was dispatched to Building 92 


-- 9202 at Oak Ridge. So I mean it just -- it 


-- it's all --


 MR. MILLER: But if it -- but if it only says 


I'm going to Oak Ridge and not 9202, what do 


you do? 


 MR. TURCIC: Well, it depends on -- okay, you 


know who the construction company was. If that 


construction company had a job during that time 


period there, we would assume that, okay, he 


could have been assigned there. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, these -- these are fine 


points, but we understand the general issue 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

321 

here and I think that's helpful, and we need to 


move on and not linger on the -- 'cause these 


are case by case things. 


 MR. TURCIC: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think we understand the 


principle. Yeah. 


 MR. TURCIC: Richard would -- Richard would be 


a hell of a claims examiner. 


 DR. WADE: It is an evolving art that we have 


to continue to --


 DR. MELIUS: Is that a job offer? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Mark has a comment or 

question. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, just a -- just one more 

thing, and -- and I think the Y-12 example 


might actually clarify this. I agree with 


Richard, I was going to ask where that was. 


But the -- the "monitored, or should have been 


monitored," I think we just said that eq-- that 


equates presence. 


 MR. TURCIC: That's (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: But if -- but if we have a write-


up where we have external versus internal and 


we say monitored or should have been monitored 


for internal, then that doesn't necessarily 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

322 

equate presence, does it, 'cause you can do 


external. You're -- you're split-- it's not 


just simple presence at that point, is it, or ­

- I guess it'd be a site-by-site basis. 


 MR. TURCIC: I think it would be the same 


thing. I mean --


 MR. GRIFFON: Still just presence. 


 MR. TURCIC: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And then what if you said 


monitored or should have been monitored for 


thorium? That, in my mind, doesn't necessarily 


mean just presence. 


 MR. TURCIC: It would be the same -- it would 


be the same thing. I mean if -- what it does, 


Mark, is if you look at the thorium, okay, in 


that example, that at least gives us a basis to 


start saying well, we know that these 


occupations -- there were -- there was internal 


monitoring. Not for thorium, but there was 


inter-- so that gives a conclusion that here's 


a whole bunch of occupations that you know, you 


know, fit into that category. And then -- so 


it's really, you know, doing it piece by piece 


and... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I think probably we've 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 -- 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

323 

exhausted this issue for now. I think we have 


a feel for the issues. We'll look forward to 


following up on some of these in the future. 


Thank you very much, Pete. 


We do -- we are going to recess shortly. A 


couple of housekeeping things. I want to 


remind Board members that one thing on our 


docket will be approval of some minutes 


tomorrow. You have them in your packet and I 


just want to give you a heads-up to be prepared 


to act on those minutes. If you haven't 


already had a chance to read through them, that 


will be your task for this evening. 


We also have the public comment that begins at 


7:30. Lew, do you have any additional items to 


 DR. WADE: Well, only to thank Pete, and this 


issue of the writing of designations is really 


a developing art, and -- and I think we need to 


learn to do it better and I think you've been 


immensely helpful, Pete, in terms of getting us 


there. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. With that, 


we'll recess until 7:30. Thank you very much. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 5:06 p.m. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

324 

to 7:30 p.m.) 


PUBLIC COMMENT


 DR. ZIEMER: Actions were taken earlier today 


by the Board, particularly with respect to the 


Blockson SEC petition, so let me briefly 


describe what happened earlier today. 


The -- the staff members from NIOSH presented 


what is called the Petition Evaluation Report. 


Hopefully those of you from Blockson have had a 


chance to see that report. Then the 


petitioners also had a number of 


representatives here to speak on their behalf 


and -- and raised a number of points. Amongst 


those who also spoke on behalf of the 


petitioners was Senator Obama, who raised a 


number of points, as well. 


The -- the issues raised by both the Senator 


and the other petitioners -- a number of those 


issues the Board discussed in some detail, and 


after lengthy discussion there was a formal 


motion that passed by the Board to postpone the 


decision on Blockson until several of the 


issues that had been raised by the petitioners 


and by the Senator could be addressed. These 


included the following: A clarification of the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

325 

-- what is called the source term, or the 


amounts of uranium or other activity present on 


the site. Secondly, a request that there be a 


formal worker outreach meeting held by NIOSH to 


gather formally information from Blockson 


workers, and NIOSH has committed to doing that. 


Thirdly, amongst the points of the motion, that 


the Board establish a working group that would 


work together with the Board's contractor, 


SC&A, to clarify some of the other issues that 


had been raised, most particularly the issue of 


radon exposures, but also some other related 


possible issues that had been questioned by the 


petitioners. 


So the status at the moment then is that a -- a 


final decision on the recommended SEC 


evaluation by the -- by the NIOSH staff has 


been delayed at least until the next Board 


meeting that we -- we don't have a definite 


timetable yet because it's unknown how long it 


will take to gather all the information, but -- 


and we're hoping to do -- and some of the 


petitioners have helped -- have agreed to help 


us try to locate some of this information, as 


well. But pending the obtaining and evaluation 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

326 

of the information that the Board wishes to 


examine prior to making a decision, that 


decision will be at least temporary -- 


temporarily delayed. And I might point out 


that -- that Senator Obama himself had 


requested such a delay. 


So with that as background now, we will open 


our public comment session. This is not 


restricted to only the Blockson issue. There 


are -- actually we have a number of petitions 


and -- and -- petitions and dose reconstruction 


issues before the Board and some -- some site 


profile issues, as well. And we have made a 


commitment to one individual to speak to -- in 


the public comment session to speak to the 


Board by phone, and that is Ms. Terrie Barrie 


from the Rocky Flats area, Denver, and I need 


to find out if Terrie Barrie is on the line. 


 Terrie, are you there? 


 MS. BARRIE: Yes, Dr. Ziemer, I am. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Can we raise the volume there a 

little bit? Terrie --

 MS. BARRIE: Can you hear me? 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- I think we hear you. Could you 

try again? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

327

 MS. BARRIE: Dr. Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. Terrie, is that you? If --


if -- is that Terrie? Terrie, can you hear us? 


 MS. BARRIE: Hello? 


 DR. ZIEMER: We're not hearing you. Hang on. 


And then -- do I need to move -- Terrie, can 


you hear me now? 


 MS. BARRIE: No, I can't. I can barely hear 


you, Doctor. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, we can hear you now, 


Terrie, so if you would proceed, just speak 


into the phone and we're prepared to hear your 


remarks. 


 MS. BARRIE: Okay. Thank you so much. Good 


evening, Dr. Ziemer, members of the Board. My 


name is Terrie Barrie and I'm with the Alliance 


of Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups. And once 


again I'd like to extend my appreciation to 


you, Doctor, for allowing me to call in my 


comments tonight, and to NIOSH for arranging 


this call. 


One week ago the House Judiciary Subcommittee 


on Immigration, Border Security and Claims held 


their fifth oversight hearing on EEOCAPA (sic). 


Shelby Hallmark of the DOL's Office of Worker 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

328 

Compensation Program testified that the motive 


for DOL's involvement in technical documents 


was to ensure that NIOSH's program was 


administered in a fair and consistent manner. 


I am afraid that this policy has failed with 


the Rocky Flats petition. For instance, 


workers at the Y-12 facility was awarded SEC 


status if they worked with thorium during 


certain years. In that petition NIOSH asserted 


that they could not reconstruct dose because 


they did not have access to enough data. 


NIOSH's evaluation report did identify years, 


process and buildings where thorium was present 


at Y-12, as well as a broad guesstimate of the 


amount of thorium there. Generally thorium was 


used at Y-12 for research and development 


activities. 


 NIOSH determined that this information was not 


enough to reconstruct dose with reasonable 


accuracy. As far as I can tell, NIOSH has less 


information on thorium for Rocky Flats facility 


than they did for Y-12, yet they claim they can 


still reconstruct dose for thorium workers at 


Rocky Flats. NIOSH concedes that there was 


light machining performed at Rocky Flats, as 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

329 

opposed to research and development activities 


at Y-12. One method NIOSH proposed to 


reconstruct dose was to utilize gross alpha 


readings. Yesterday the idea of treating 


thorium machining the same way they do uranium 


machining in the TBDs was introduced. 


I ask again, why were these methods not applied 


to the Y-12 workers if gross alpha data and 


uranium machining data was available? This is 


not consistent nor fair. 


During the debate of the IAAP SEC petition -- 


that's the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant -- an 


issue was raised on the radon levels NIOSH used 


for that facility. NIOSH chose to use data 


from the Pantex plant, which was a lower level 


than what was actually at the Iowa facility. 


But the rewritten introduction for the Rocky 


Flats site profile issued November 30th of this 


year states that, and I quote, (reading) 


Radiation from naturally-occurring radon 


present in conventional structures, end quote, 


are not considered occupational exposures. And 


now I understand that radia-- radon exposures 


is being considered for Blockston (sic). 


Iowa had similar levels of naturally-occurring 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

330 

radon at Rocky Flats. How could radon levels 


be included for one facility and not for Rocky 


Flats? This, too, is not fair nor consistent. 


These two examples demonstrate that NIOSH is 


not being fair and consistent in their 


evaluations of the Rocky Flats SEC petition. 


Serious doubts remain among the Rocky Flats 


claimants on their ability to reconstruct dose 


with reasonable accuracy. What is fair for one 


site should be applied to other sites. Unless 


of course the records definitively prove 


otherwise. 


Rocky Flats claimants feel that they have not 


had a fair shake in this process. The 


affidavits supplied with the petition and 


public comments are termed "allegations," 


whereas NIOSH's explanations are expected to be 


accepted as the truth. 


Time and cost involved for evaluating the Rocky 


Flats SEC petition has been raised many times. 


Two years, or almost two years, is a long time. 


Last month's denial of access to the O drive 


delayed progress of SC&A's investigation. At 


one working group meeting I heard NIOSH or the 


ORAU team member ask if the time spent on the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

331 

thorium issue was worth it as perhaps only 20 ­

- or 12 workers were involved. It certainly is 


worth it if any one of those 12 workers develop 


a compensable cancer. 


Who is suffering here from this elongated 


process? The claimants, the folks who thought 


that working at the Rocky Flats facility was a 


patriotic duty, whose bodies were bombarded 


daily by high levels of radiation. And at 


Rocky Flats, those levels were high. 


I hope the Board will consider what is fair and 


what is consistent when deciding on the Rocky 


Flats petition. I look forward to the February 


meeting. 


On another note, I do want to thank NIOSH for 


appointing Denise Brock as the ombudsman for 


dose reconstruction claims. I know she will do 


well. I urge NIOSH to update their web site as 


soon as possible to post her contact 


information and responsibilities so that any 


claimants who have problems will have a point 


of contact. 


Thank you again for call-- for allowing me to 


call in this comment. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Terrie. We 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

332 

appreciate your comments. 


We'll continue now with comments from those 


here in attendance. I may have trouble reading 


some of your names, so forgive me if I don't 


pronounce them correctly, and I'll just take 


them in order as they have appeared on the 


sign-up sheet. 


First Joshua -- is it Lott? Joshua Lott? It 


looks like L-o-t-t. 


 (No responses) 


No? Okay, let's go on -- and this is someone 


who's with Reuters. 


 (No responses) 


No? Okay. Now the next one I'm really having 


trouble reading. It looks like it could be -- 


is that a -- what do you think? Is that 


Charles? Last name looks like it begins with 


an O. 


 DR. WADE: I would guess Charles S. Otere -- 


Oter? 


 (No responses) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Not close. We're obviously not 


reading it well. Maybe we'll --


 DR. MELIUS: Who else do you have? 


 DR. ZIEMER: We may skip ahead and then if you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

333 

feel like you were left out, we can come back. 


I'm sorry. 


George Luber? I think George was with us 


yesterday and -- welcome back, George. 


MR. LUBER: George Luber, and I thank you for 


leaving me speak today's -- this evening. I'm 


going to explore this book that was given to 


you yesterday. The -- I take my glasses off to 


read. I read the whole document this morning 


and these are some of the things that I -- I 


came up with. And I numbered each page, 


starting with the first white page, which is 


numbered one, and numbered them from there on 


back. 


Page number 12, internal exposure to radiation. 


When you -- we talk radiation, we don't all 


necessarily speak of the two Betatrons. We 


also talk about the cobalt-80 unit, the small 


cobalt unit, and there was a couple of other 


radioactive sources that I was not real 


familiar with because I was not licensed to use 


them. 


On page 18, persons present, Joe Poole on the 


Betatron controls, which is on page 18, which 


is this picture here. We're shooting the axle 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

334 

housing, of which there were four, for the 


largest strip mine crane in the world. Joe's 


on the controls of the Betatron. I'm checking 


the distance on the casting, and the operator 


was Steve Conage* and he's on the end of the 


casting. If you look at me real close, I'm 


filthy dirty. I'm coal black 'cause I crawled 


in that axle on my hands and knees. This is 


one of the dirtiest, filthiest castings we ever 


worked on. The portion we were shooting was 


the connection between the axle and gear box. 


That was an hour to an hour 15 minute, full 


speed on the Betatron. If we were lucky, we 


got six shots in eight hours. 


On page 23 -- on page 23 Rudy Willey* and 


myself were shooting a Westinghouse valve. 


Rudy was my wet -- my mentor. He's being 


treated for lung cancer right now. 


On pages 27 and 28, these cassettes which are 


pictured are 14 by 70. They were loaded with 


multiple speeds of film for areas of multiple 


thicknesses. In the case of the shot exposure 


site, the shot time would have been in 


excessive (sic) of one hour at full speed of 


the Betatron. In the case of this casting, the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

335 

same cassette -- or the same cassettes have 


been reloaded and used two or three times in 


the same eight-hour shift. Now these are 


stainless steel, and I think there's some term 


that the types of metal in the cassette also 


become radioactive, so we guys handled these -- 


these cassettes, the same cassettes, many times 


in eight hours. The next shift used the same 


cassettes and the next shift used the same 


cassettes -- same cassettes on the following 


day, same cassettes. So some of these -- some 


of these metal cassettes can -- can be -- could 


have been hotter than a firecracker. 


On page 31, active beta material and removable 


contamination. In my case, and many other of 


my fellow department persons, would work 16­

hour days, eight hours on the Betatron, eight 


hours out on the floor where we did magnaflux 


work, spot check weldings, so on and so forth. 


The -- out on the report -- repair floor where 


the chipping, burning, grinding and welding 


were done in filthy, dirty working conditions. 


Number 9 building would be cleaned with 


electromagnet hooked to the crane and drug back 


and forth to pick up the metal so the janitor 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

336 

could sweep the floor. It was not uncommon to 


see six inches of trash and dirt on the floors. 


If we needed to move a magnaflux machine, which 


has -- what should have been a moveable, by 


hand, machine, we had to get a crane to pick it 


up and move it because you couldn't move it 


with so much dirt and dust and filth on the 


floor. By the same token, it wasn't uncommon 


to see trash barrels catch on fire because they 


were so full the janitors couldn't get to them 


to empty them. So when you talk about the 


filthy, dirty working conditions and the 


radioactivity that was produced in the 


Betatrons, and the castings that moved all over 


8, 9, 10 building, 6 building, it pretty well ­

- that dust and dirt was carried, radioactive, 


all over the plant. This is one thing that we 


need to understand. 


 Westinghouse turbines would have anywhere from 


200-plus shots on a green shot -- on a green 


casting. The casting may come back into the 


Betatron five or six times for repair checks of 


the individual shots that were repaired. So 


when you talk about dust contamination, et 


cetera, with the casting going in and out of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

337 

the Betatron, where did all this dust go? 


Especially us magnaflux guys. 


When ma-- maybe I need to explain what 


magnaflux is. It's nothing more than two prods 


set on a casting and you magnetize a given area 


with two prods. You spray this powder on there 


and if there's a crack -- like you can do with 


most anything -- that powder would form on the 


crack because that's the -- that was the 


jumping point between the two poles. And when 


we get finished, we take an air hose and blow 


it off, all over the plant. So when you --


when you talk about radiation exposure with the 


castings going in and out of the Betatron, 


being dirty with metal dust, and then we blow 


if off out in the plant, where does this dust 


all go? 


Rudy -- Rudy -- okay, I'm going to give you my 


written presentation here and this is a diagram 


of the entire plant. I don't know if you 


gentleman have them or not, but this -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is that in the book we got, or is 


this --


MR. LUBER: I don't think so. 


 MR. CLAWSON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

338 

in the first book, though? It's not in -- 


MR. LUBER: It might have been in the first 


book, yeah. 


 MR. CLAWSON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


MR. LUBER: But given -- given the -- the time 


period from the cleanup in the new Betatron and 


the old Betatron, 20 years after the plant was 


closed down and there was still radiation 


present, to me brings up a big question mark. 


How much radiation was there really there when 


the plant closed? Knock on wood, I'm in pretty 


good shape yet. Maybe I'm one of the lucky 


ones. That's the end of my comment. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. George, when -- when 


you and your colleagues were doing the 


radiographs, and I think you describe them as 


being as long as one hour or greater, where 


were you located relative to this -- the 


Betatron target? Did they move -- were you 


moved behind any shielding materials, or just 


moved away some distance, or what -- 


MR. LUBER: The -- the shooting room in both 


Betatrons was in a -- well, shall we say a pea 


fashion. You had a big shooting room with a 


rail transfer car coming in on one end, but we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

339 

sat in the control room, which was on the -- in 


the corner of the L of the casting room and the 


transfer area. The -- there again -- I'll give 


you one more example. 


The one day I was operating I came in at 3:30 


in the afternoon. I made a couple of shots, 


short shots. And when I came back in I noticed 


there's a pallet of film sitting here in the 


shooting room, right next to the rail -- or the 


transfer tracks. And I guess there was 


probably 30 or 40 boxes of X-ray film on that 


casting -- or on that pallet. So I called the 


foreman and had him come and get it out of 


there. That film wasn't supposed to be in 


there. 


So there was one of the boxes that was -- we 


opened and checked the film to see if it was 


damaged in any way. One of the boxes we 


opened, nearest to the exposure room, the edges 


of that film was burnt, around the edges of the 


boxes, sitting probably 50 feet away from the 


Betatron. Okay. How far does this radiation 


go in that building when that cassette was -- 


or that pallet of film was sitting 50 feet away 


and it was burnt around the edges. The company 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

340 

went ahead and used it because it was only 


damaged around the edge. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 


MR. LUBER: But it leaves big question marks. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


MR. LUBER: The same way -- one of the guys I 


was working with who was a -- had authority to 


use an 80-curie source of cobalt, and we shot 


the weld prep of the channel head, which is the 


cap of a nuclear power plant. You shoot this 


complete weld prep 42-inch -- or 42 film around 


the edge, flex film; you tie it with a strap, 


you set the cobalt unit up in the middle and 


you shoot all 42 shots at one time. The 


operator wouldn't block the case. The controls 


were in the operating room. But anybody'd 


turned that crank in the shooting -- in the 


operating room, we'd have been exposed. I 


chewed his ass out and he was unhappy. But 80­

curie source is about as big as a pea. A 


lethal dose is three minutes. Three minutes. 


You don't die tomorrow; you die six months 


later after you suffered for six months. 


So when you talk about all this radiation and 


all the dust and dirt that was in the plant, it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 -- 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

341 

gets to be pretty scary. And like I say, I 


think I'm one of the lucky ones that I haven't 


-- doesn't have cancer yet. 


One of the other things when -- when working in 


magnaflux, which is metallic dust, you didn't 


wear a shirt like this in the summertime 


because you could take many baths as you want, 


showers or whatever, but if you sweated, this 


shirt would turn rusty. This was metal dust 


that was in your pores that you could not wash 


off. It was also radioactive. So there's -- 


there's lot more questions here than there are 


answers. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Thank you, George. 


Appreciate it. 


MR. LUBER: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Lois P-i-r -- P-i-r -- is Lois -- 


any -- any Loises here? How did we get so many 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: I have you separately, Louise. 


-- I have your name on here, but this is -- 


this is a Lois. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

342 

(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: This is definitely a Lois -- or it 


could be Luis, I suppose, who -- who identifies 


herself as a claimant -- looks like P-i-r-c. 


Okay, let's -- let's go on. Mary Beth Charley, 


and Mary Beth was with us -- 


 DR. WADE: Spoke earlier. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- yesterday, but is Mary Beth -- 


 DR. WADE: No, she spoke today, just before the 


break. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, she's the one who spoke before 


the break, yes, so we have her already. How 


about Mary Gates -- perhaps it's Mary Lou 


Gates? 


 (No responses) 


Hmm, okay. How about Rosemary Bell Malone? 


 (No responses) 


Have we lost that many that fast? Okay. Bev 


Marcoski? Yes, Bev -- and Bev we've had 


before. She's still here. Okay, Bev. 


MS. MARCOSKI: Actually I came back. I had to 


go home and work out and air my brain after all 


those tough sessions, so -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you for coming back, so... 


MS. MARCOSKI: Again, Bev Marcoski. My father 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

343 

worked for Blockson Olin Chemicals. I had a 


few more thoughts. A lot of these things I'm 


going to present I have talked to Mr. Thomas 


about -- Tomes, however you say his name -- and 


I addressed a couple of memos to him directly. 


I'd like to talk about the general assumptions 


in the Technical Basis Document versus speci-- 


being more specific, specificity. And I have 


about seven points I want to make, and I'm 


going to be very brief, and they relate more to 


my father's job or occupation. 


So point one -- and some of these things have 


been said before -- is the 2,000 hour 


assumption in the SEC document and in the 


Technical Basis Document 2. Basically we all 


know that's 40 hours a week times 50 weeks, 


allowing for about two weeks vacation. In my 


father's case I have his pension master, and I 


have the last six years of how many hours that 


he worked overtime, and overtime is something 


that he did frequently that I do remember. He 


had a max of 2,603 hours. That 600 out of 


2,000 is roughly a third more time spent 


working routinely. Again, as we've talked 


before, the data is sketchy. It's only the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

344 

last six years of his employment, through 1982. 


Going before that it's not specific how many 


hours worked in a year. So again, there's 


general assumptions made on the 2,000-hour work 


year. 


Point two deals more specifically as his -- 


what he did. He was a handler of the drums. 


He was a loader, mover of these materials in 


Building 55, so he actually touched those 


drums. And it was brought up earlier by Mark 


Griffon that that's 150 millirems of exposure 


you're talking, versus two millirems at one 


foot away times 40 hours. So again, not 


specific enough for what he did to get an 


accurate calculation on exposure. 


Third, in his later years with Olin Chemicals, 


he was a welder. They chose type M wave. I 


believe there's F, M and S are the choices for 


the radiation, and I did talk to Mr. Tomes 


about this and he said M was their choice. In 


the Technical Basis Document it says that 


there's a type S wave that has to do with high-


fired materials. The type S wave leaves the 


lungs much more slowly than the type M waves. 


Again, being more specific to my father's job 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

345 

as a welder welding with pipes that have 


phosphoric acid in them, I'm not sure that's 


specific enough to his job type just to assume 


type M versus type S 'cause he was working with 


high-fired materials. 


Again, point number four, just to get 


technical, shoveling is not used in Technical 


Basis Document 2. They assume a hopper, based 


on what other plants used, and then -- but they 


have people stating that sometimes they thought 


it was shoveled, the uranium or the yellow-- 


yellowcake, so they kind of contradicted 


themself (sic) in the SEC petition this 


afternoon, saying they used shoveling. But if 


you read Technical Basis Document 2, page 7 of 


27, it shows that they assumed a hopper. 


I guess point five, again I touched on the 


radon. I don't think I need to go into a lot 


of detail. Again, it was calculated in 


Technical Basis Document for 1952 to 1962. 


There was nothing given for its association 


with the residual contamination. Again, my 


father worked there for 30 years, so that's 20 


more years of exposure. 


 Point six, they assume these were production 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

346 

workers, and the assumption that goes with that 


is light work. And along with that is another 


assumption of how much picocuries a day. 
I 


question that assumption, again, with Mr. Tomes 


in my one-on-one memos to him. It was a .2 


picocurie a day based on 70 percent light 


exercise for the production workers. Again, 


not specific. My father was, again, I would 


call a laborer or a heavy worker, moving drums 


that could have weighed 1,000 pounds, and 


welding equipment that weighed probably well 


over 100 pounds. That categorizes as heavy 


work and that would increase the respiration 


intake along with this, but it wasn't accounted 


for. Again, general, not specific to the job 


task. 


Point six -- that was six; seven, the data -- 


the bioassay early in production, the 


yellowcake -- or the exposure was much more 


dangerous as production went on, and I'm 


wondering if the bioassays are from the early 


years and not when the radioactive daughters 


could have been more potentially hazardous to 


these people, and so then questioning the 


validity of the earliness of that and if there 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

347 

were things closer to 1962. 


And I guess lastly, sciences and the data, and 


all the steps I believe should be followed in 


this production of the uranium, not limiting it 


to Building 55, but looking at what it took to 


-- the whole process, and to follow that. 


 Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. And Bev, I might 


mention -- and NIOSH people can help me if I'm 


incorrect, but it's my understanding that -- 


that the Department of Labor, when they look at 


the -- the 250-day issue or the sort of the 


2,000-hour year issue, that they actually are 


in a position to do some weighting if they have 


evidence that individuals worked longer work 


weeks. And I'm -- I think I've interpreted 


that correctly. 


Larry or one of the NIOSH people -- or maybe 


someone from Labor -- is -- is Pete still here? 


Okay, Stu Hinnefeld. Now I -- whether or not 


they're able to do that on an individual basis 


-- we know that -- they have told us that they 


-- they can do weighting, and apparently do 


weighting, where they have evidence to that 


effect. But Stu, can you address that for us? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 -- 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 -- 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

348

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, what you're talking about 


is in ar-- in arriving at 250 days for SEC -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, for --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- qualification in terms of 


time period. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- the 250-day issue, but -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think the issue here might be 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- here might be the model that's 


used for --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I think this is a 


question about, in the dose reconstruction 


model, is the 2,000 hour per year of intake 


because it's an intake rate -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- (unintelligible) intake rate 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and should that number be 


adjusted upward seems to be the issue here. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So it'd be something to be 


pursued. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. CASE: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 -- 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

349

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, right, okay. Now we'll hear 


from Labor. 


 DR. CASE: Dianne Case from Department of 


Labor, just to speak to the 2,000 hours per 


year. Again, at any sites, if the claimant has 


additional information at the time the 


recommended decision has been issued, they can 


always bring up information that they may have 


-- other evidence that, say they worked longer 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. CASE: -- periods of time, that can be 


adjudicated. 


 DR. ZIEMER: If it were an SEC issue, you could 


weight the -- to meet the 250-day requirement. 


 DR. CASE: Well --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. CASE: -- 250 days is 250 days. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think we've been told that 


if there were evidence that -- no? Am -- am I 


wrong on --


UNIDENTIFIED: You're right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We -- we've been told that Labor 


will weight -- if there were evidence that -- 


that a given worker worked, for example, 12­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

350 

hour days --


 DR. CASE: Yeah, that --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- they would take whatever -- 250 


times eight --


 DR. CASE: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- to get the right number of 


hours, yeah. 


 DR. CASE: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Okay. And 


also, Bev -- I think you were here earlier -- 


you're aware that we are looking into the radon 


issue, as well, with the help of our 


contractor, so hopefully we'll be able to 


clarify that further, as well, and some of 


these other issues we've gotten notes on them, 


so thank you. 


 DR. LOCKEY: I have a question. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, a question, yes. 

 DR. LOCKEY: Yeah, one -- one question -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Lockey may be --

 DR. LOCKEY: Larry, in that case where somebody 

is working 2,600 hours a year, is that 


additional information they can submit to NIOSH 


for the dose reconstruction and that is taken 


under advisement? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

351

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, we would -- we would love to 


hear that kind of information in the interview. 


If it doesn't appear at that point, there's 


another opportunity for an individual claimant 


to speak about whether the dose reconstruction 


included overtime or not, and that would be at 


the closeout interview. We'd hope that they 


would bring it up at that point again and so we 


could address it properly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So if a model were used based on a 


40-hour week and you had evidence or an 


affidavit that the person worked 80-hour weeks 


or something, you could -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- adjust --


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- you know, we could adjust -- 


we can adjust. We'd also -- there's an -- you 


know, at the appeal point, when they get a 


recommended decision from DOL, they have 


another opportunity to express their concerns 


about how their dose was reconstructed and 


whether or not it was accounted for, excess 


overtime work. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Yes, Bev, do you -- 


MS. MARCOSKI: I did bring that up with Mr. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

352 

Tomes -- I did bring that up individually with 


Mr. Tomes in a conversation and then in a -- a 


memo, and his response said it was -- the upper 


limit of 95th percentile covered that excess, 


but I wasn't following it. That's why I 


thought I should bring it up to this Board. 


disagreed. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well --


MS. MARCOSKI: And I didn't bring it up in my 


exit interview -- yeah, and I didn't bring it 


up in my exit interview because I thought that 


it was closed, that that was it, but I am 


pursuing further with the Department of Labor. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


MS. MARCOSKI: Because it was so close to the 


cutoff. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, understood. Thank you. 


John Ramspott, and John we heard from yesterday 


and pleased to have you back again. 


MR. RAMSPOTT: Thank you. 


(Pause) 


My name's John Ramspott and I'm representing 


and working with General Steel Industry 


employees. When I signed in this morning I 


asked the young lady if I could read two 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

353 

letters from claimants that weren't able to 


attend and asked me to read this for them on 


their behalf. 


One of them I'm going to read first, that's 


from my wife, Christine Ramspott, who is -- her 


father worked at General Steel Industries and 


she's official representative for her mother, 


Ruth. 


(Reading) Dear Sirs, Madams, since I'm unable 


to attend the meeting this week, I'm asking 


that my husband, John Ramspott, make a brief 


public comment on my behalf as the official 


representative for my mother, a claimant under 


the program. I again ask for your assistance. 


The issue of correctly naming the place of 


employment for which my father worked has still 


not been totally resolved. My father worked 


for General Steel Industries in Granite City, 


Illinois, for over 35 years, as did his father. 


Under this program, as of Saturday, December 


9th, 2006, the DOL web site still lists this 


facility as Granite City Steel, which was a 


totally, completely different company located 


across town from where my father worked. 


 Additionally, this information is also wrong in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

354 

the Federal Register. It is only partially 


correct on the DOE web site. Generally 


claimants for this facility are elderly and not 


particularly knowledgeable about computer 


usage. Most searches would start with the 


Department of Labor. If the potential claimant 


can't locate the name of his or her place of 


employment, the search generally stops. This 


doesn't seem to be fair and equitable, in my 


opinion. I also question how other claimants 


across the country are getting necessary 


information if they work at a company that has 


had several name changes over the years. 


My husband John and I have made several 


attempts to correct this naming issue. It was 


first brought to the Board's attention at the 


Westin Hotel in August 2005. Shortly after 


this issue was personally brought to the 


attention of Mr. Peter Turcic at a meeting in 


St. Charles, Missouri. The problem was also 


discussed during our telephone interview with 


ORAU November 2005. It was part of the 


workbook that we wrote and distributed to the 


members of the Board and other responsible 


officials. The name issue and request for a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

355 

change was also presented to the Board at the 


meeting in June 2006 held in Washington, D.C. 


After this meeting, my husband and others had a 


phone conversation with Mr. Turcic about 


several concerns regarding General Steel 


Industries, including again the issue and 


necessity of the name being listed correctly on 


all government resources. 


We have recently been working with officials of 


the United States Steelworkers Union in Granite 


City. We provided the union and its retiree 


association with the three names of former 


workers from General Steel Industries which 


were given to our workgroup by NIOSH. These 


workers had completed dose reconstructions 


along with denials. These individuals are now 


deceased. Thus we were allowed to have their 


names. We have been told by the steelworkers' 


organizations that they are 99 and nine-tenths 


percent sure that these individuals never 


worked at General Steel Industries and were in 


fact known to them as long-time employees of 


Granite City Steel. We both feel that perhaps 


the site naming confusion may be the reason for 


this dose reconstruction activity on ineligible 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

356 

claimants. If this occurred, as we suspect, it 


would certainly be proof that the correct name 


change issue must be resolved. 


I would like to request a formal reply to this 


issue as further contact with these families is 


planned in light of the new radiation source 


information which we believe now must be taken 


into consideration as required by the EEOICPA 


program. 


As an educator for over 30 years, I 


respectfully assign you guys some homework. 


Can you help me? And we really --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Before you read that other 


letter, let -- let me ask a question. What --


what is the name that NIOSH is using to 


identify this site? Is it -- is it Gen-- it's 


General Steel? NIOSH, do we -- do we know -- I 


recall this coming up before and I'm puzzled 


why we --


MR. RAMSPOTT: It's like a bad penny. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- haven't resolved it, so what -- 


what has happened is some people have been told 


that they are not eligible because they 


(unintelligible) --


MR. RAMSPOTT: Or mail comes to them that says 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

357 

they worked at Granite City Steel. They've had 


to argue with interviewers to convince them. 


I've had people told sorry, you're talking 


about the wrong site; that's not even part of 


the program. And this has gone on for a long 


time and --


 DR. ZIEMER: In -- in the official list of 


eligible sites, what is listed there? Do we 


know that, as a starting point? In the 


original legislation that -- 


MR. RAMSPOTT: Yeah, it -- it says Granite City 


Steel. It's the wrong name. Federal Register
 

is wrong. I'm real familiar with Peter Eisler. 


It's -- it's wrong there, too. 


 DR. ZIEMER: If it's wrong in the Federal 


Register, that's -- that's a -- a major 


problem, isn't it? 


MR. RAMSPOTT: Yeah. I just looked it up on 


the Internet and it's wrong. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Okay. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I can't answer your question 


right now; I don't have my book with me that 


would list this particular site. All I can say 


on this topic is that we reconstruct doses for 


those individual claimants that DOL finds 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

358 

eligible to send to us. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I -- I understand -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: It's not our responsibility to 


question whether or not we've got the right -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- person from the right site, 


and I understand --


 DR. ZIEMER: It sounds like --


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- the problem here. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- Pete may have made a commitment 


to -- to do something and -- I'm wondering if ­

- if the fact that it got -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Laurie tells me that in our 


system of documentation that we use, we've 


changed the name to GSI, but that's not -- am I 


-- did I get that right? 


MS. ISHAK: We -- we change the -- the cases -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: To General Steel Industries? 


MS. ISHAK: We change ours to General Steel 


Industries, GSI, in NOCTS. I know, only 


because I've been working with John on this 


issue, and Dr. McKeel. And I know we've had 


some e-mail contacts about how we have changed 


it to General Steel. And then there was some 


confusion about whether the cases we have done 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

359 

dose reconstructions for actually were for GSI 


employees. So I know we changed the name in 


our system, in NOCTS, and -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: But if we don't catch it in 


advance at the Labor side, we have a problem 


and --


MR. RAMSPOTT: And they don't get to you unless 


they (unintelligible) -- 


MS. ISHAK: That I don't know. 


MR. RAMSPOTT: -- right site. 


DR. ZIEMER: We're going to try to follow up on 


this. 


MR. RAMSPOTT: We're just asking for some help 


on it 'cause --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


MR. RAMSPOTT: -- it did get corrected 


partially. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. I think NIOSH has tried to 


do the right thing here and I -- I suspect if 


it started out wrong in the Federal Register
 

that we -- we've got a problem. 


MR. RAMSPOTT: Well, it got -- it did get 


corrected on the DOE site, to a -- a point. It 


says some radioactivity -- or some work was 


done for Granite City Steel -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

360

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


MR. RAMSPOTT: -- at General Steel. Well, 


that's totally wrong, too, 'cause they -- 


Granite City Steel never had anything to do 


with --


 DR. ZIEMER: Mark -- Mark has pulled out the 


Federal Register for me, and as you have 


indicated, it -- it says Granite City Steel. 


MR. RAMSPOTT: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. So you know --


MR. RAMSPOTT: It needs to be fixed. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So this -- this is what Labor is 


working off of, it would appear, so -- okay. 


MR. RAMSPOTT: If it could be fixed 'cause 


these people turn away a lot of times. They 


just quit. They've been told no and you're at 


the wrong site and -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you for reminding us of this 


issue --


MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- John. I know you've brought it 


up before, and I think we thought it had been 


corrected, but it obviously has not. You may 


proceed. 


MR. RAMSPOTT: And I --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

361

 DR. WADE: Wanda has a question. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, Wanda. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. My question is, were there in 


fact two sites which may have been AWEs? Might 


work have been done at both sites, or are we -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Do we know --


 MS. MUNN: -- assured it's only one? 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- the answer to that or do you 


know for -- do you know that they weren't 


eligible? 


MR. RAMSPOTT: Absolutely. Granite City Steel 


was a totally different company. It's never 


been on any of the Federal Register lists 


whatsoever correctly. There was no work done 


for the -- you know, for them. The only thing 


we thought that could have maybe happened is 


that -- and there -- there are four people 


involved. Three of them we were given their 


names. And with the union telling us nah, 


these guys never worked at General Steel -- 


let's say they worked one year, the 250-day -- 


and again, we're not trying to beat a dead 


horse. We'd like to try and locate these 


people 'cause we think some things are going to 


change now 'cause looking at the dose 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

362 

reconstructions, no Betatron was mentioned, no 


cobalt was mentioned, no radium was mentioned, 


activation's never been mentioned, and these 


people are probably entitled to a new dose 


reconstruction, I would think, so it'd be kind 


of nice to find those families so they can ask 


for that 'cause they've been denied. And it's 


also -- the other reason -- I don't know what a 


dose reconstruction costs, but it could be a 


waste of money if they're doing any more. 


Those four were done for maybe people that 


didn't work there and we would really like to 


see that money spent on somebody who is 


eligible because --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Stuart has a comment here, 


maybe --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Wanda, with respect to your 


question, the confusion arose because -- now 


correct me if I'm wrong here, John -- Granite 


City Steel bought the property that GSI had 


used to do this work, later on. Is that true? 


MR. RAMSPOTT: Partially. The parent company 


of Granite City Steel is National Steel -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 


MR. RAMSPOTT: -- so if that was the reason, it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 -- 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

363 

would probably say National Steel -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So --


MR. RAMSPOTT: -- instead of Granite City 


Steel. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- there was some combination 


of these --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so it's even more confusing 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- later on after 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- than we think. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- (unintelligible) work -- 


MR. RAMSPOTT: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) work. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and the remediation work 


that was subsequently done at what was the 


General -- City or -- General City Steel -- 


GSI, General Steel, when the work was done it 


was GSI. By the time the remediation work was 


done later on, the DOE referred to it as the 


Granite City Steel property. So I believe 


that's the origin of the original confusion, 


but there doesn't seem to be any indication 


that Granite Steel Company and the facility -- 


the different facility that they operated in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

364 

Granite City ever did any AWE work. The work 


was done at GSI. 


 MS. MUNN: So I guess the real basic question 


is, we're sure we have the right site, whether 


we have the right name or not. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The GSI site was the -- 


 MS. MUNN: We're on the right site. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, the GSI site was where 


the AWE work was done. 


MR. RAMSPOTT: If the address is right, the 


address is --


 MS. MUNN: Very good. 


MR. RAMSPOTT: -- General Steel, it just has 


the wrong name on it, so -- and the Betatron 


was definitely at General Steel. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Go ahead and proceed with the 


other letter. 


MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay. The next letter is from a 


claimant, and this gentleman -- he really is 


very ill. His name is Gillum Burgess. 


(Reading) Thank you for reminding me of the 


Board meeting in Chicago next week. I'd like 


to go and would if my arriving in the emergency 


room of Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis 


nearly unconscious at -- October the 11th, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

365 

which led to a total 21 days in a medical 


facility in metropolitan St. Louis. I'm very 


fortunate to be able to e-mail you this message 


as things started bad on the 20th of October, 


was taken by ambulance in a coma to St. 


Anthony's Center in Alton where I believe my 


life was saved. 


The purpose in writing this letter to all of 


you is to hopefully ask that the letter would 


be read and given to the Board if you can make 


copies for all to ask that a determination be 


made before I die, and others die. 


During the years that I worked at Commonwealth 


Plant of General Steel Castings, now GSI, I 


believed there was no real danger as the 


corporation and leaders took every precaution 


known at that time. When renal cancer -- or, 


I'm sorry -- when renal cancer, renal cell 


carcinoma, RCC, was found in my left kidney and 


all successfully removed in 1994 and later nonHodgkin's lymphoma was found during surgery in 


my left eye, I never considered that the old 


Betatron and other non-destructive testing 


tools that I managed -- he was the manager of 


the Betatron -- were the cause. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

366 

Of course we knew nothing of skyshine 


activation in the '50s and '60s. Some had made 


investigations, but those were not well-known. 


Now I know much has been done by others at this 


time. 


Talked to my mother, who had recovered from 


female cancer, about the kind of cancers I was 


diagnosed with and she knew of no other person 


in her or Dad's family who had ever had those 


types of cancer, renal cell carcinoma or nonHodgkin's lymphoma. She believed Dad's liver 


cancer was either caused by the medicine to 


cure a serious lung disease, tuberculosis, or 


from beer-drinking -- not excessively, but with 


many meals over a long period of time. There 


was no biopsy done at the time on Dad, but 


again, the emphasis is on no RCC or lymphoma in 


my family before me. 


The Manhattan Project, which I believe was the 


forerunner of the Atomic Energy Commission, did 


much work in the St. Louis area by contract and 


subcontract in plants owned by St. Louis 


companies, some done out of state in Missouri 


and Illinois like Dow Chemical, the Granite 


City Plant of GSI. We made X-rays of castings 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

367 

used on Polaris-type submarines, including the 


12 I believe missile tubes, cast armor for 


World War II and the Korean Conflict; uranium 


from Mallinckrodt Chemical Company's plant in 


Weldon Spring, Missouri; railroad castings like 


the motor trucks at each end of a subway car in 


New York. Using cobalt-60, GSI had a complete 


family of non-destructive testing from 


Betatrons, dye penetrant, all used daily except 


for the 250 KVP X-ray machine. We followed the 


Atomic Energy Commission requirements for all 


employees because one seniority list a person 


might be in the chemical testing area one week 


and assigned to the Betatron the next week. 


taught the course we wrote on radiation 


physics, which emphasized the calculation of 


how many feet must be between the source and 


the operator to be safe. Time was a 


consideration. 


 The Polaris submarine, when armed with I 


believe 30 missiles, is a complete weapons 


system. Can you imagine any nation on earth 


attacking us in any way with submarines fully 


armed and a capable -- or capability of 


navigating under the polar ice cap. One of the 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

368 

early submarines, the Thresher, went down at 


sea. A major investigation determined the 


Thresher began -- or when the Thresher went 


down, that began one of the most intense 


inspection systems ever devised. I thought I'd 


never forget the full name of the program. 


Now again my reason for communication in 


writing, please make your decision before 


others die, and myself. Respectfully 


submitted, Gillum E. Burgess. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much, John. 


MR. RAMSPOTT: Now if I can do my comments 


personally, and I'll keep them brief because 


this is simply a follow-up on some of the other 


issues. 


First off, I really wanted to thank Robert 


Stephan and Senator Obama for coming to the 


meeting today. I think it definitely showed 


the claimants that people are interested in 


helping them. The Board's always here. Now we 


see some different people coming -- really 


quite miraculous, to be honest with you. 


And then we wanted to -- I really wanted to 


thank the people -- I've had a few people walk 


up and say you really gave some good 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

369 

information last night and I personally wanted 


to thank you for that 'cause I think it's a 


whole new outlook to this site and maybe some 


others. You know, and I'd like to see 


accelerators being looked at, you know, at Iowa 


or the Cyclotron and starting to do a quite a 


bit of reading on that and I see a lot of new 


data coming out, so maybe we helped open that 


book up a little bit. 


Now we really came here and I -- today thrilled 


me to watch these other NIOSH-recommended SECs 


and how they were being handled and how they're 


being looked at. It's a whole different book 


of how to do business, it looks like to me, and 


I was really, really impressed by it. You 


know, there were some things came up that I saw 


that would apply to General Steel Industries. 


You take Building 55, you know, and I kept my 


mouth shut 'cause I was ready to jump in there, 


too, 'cause it's like the Betatron. It was 


secured and nobody else was ever allowed in 


there, except for the electrician, the plumber, 


the railroad guy, the chain guy, the crane men, 


inspectors, they had lunch brought in time to 


time. Yeah, it was secure. It had a ten-foot 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

370 

wall but everybody could come in there if they 


had to, if they had business in there. That 


sound like -- that's what happened at that 


plant, too. 


And I was also going to say that -- oh, gosh, 


please give these guys an out-- give them an 


outreach meeting. Let them tell their story. 


Get their -- you know, the facts out. I saw 


what happened at GSI. That outreach meeting's 


gold -- golden opportunity for everybody. 


Everybody learned from ours, so... 


And I guess the bottom line was we're hoping 


NIOSH will give us that directed SEC, or that 


suggested recommended SEC and then you'll 


approve it 'cause there is a lack of data. 


When we started looking into this, we were -- 


and our relationship with NIOSH is really very 


good 'cause they promised to give us everything 


they had. We'll give you all the information. 


Time we started, you know what the information 


was was all the stuff we got off the Internet. 


There wasn't any information so we worked as a 


pretty good team now putting together all the 


information. And in that particular case of 


General Steel, there was 13 years worth of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

371 

uranium going over there and 20-some-odd years 


with a Betatron, so there's a lot of radiation 


that nobody knew about, never been discussed 


before. So you know, the equal treatment that 


someone else just mentioned on the phone, I 


thought that was very interesting 'cause we did 


-- we were at the meeting for the Iowa 


radiographers, you know, and so we clearly 


know, like there was a time frame when there 


was no radiological material, but you guys took 


into consideration the flash X-ray, which was a 


six-million volt accelerator. I think it was 


made by Allis Chalmers. 


So I appreciate your time, look forward to 


working with you. We've got documents that 


we're going to share with everyone. And again, 


I just appreciate the consideration 'cause you 


guys didn't listen to these people, they don't 


have a chance. 


 Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, John. 


 Then we'll hear from Dr. McKeel -- Dan, are you 


still here? Yes. 

(Pause) 

 DR. MCKEEL: Well, anyway, good evening to the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

372 

Board. I -- this -- tonight I really want to 


talk about the Battelle task order 16 contract, 


and also reinforce what John just said about 


why we believe -- very briefly but sort of in 


summary fashion -- why we merit an 83.14 SEC 


for General Steel Industries. 


On the web -- on the OCAS web site, and I 


quote, is this. (Reading) On October the 12th, 


2005 NIOSH awarded a one-year task order 


contract to Battelle. Under this contract 


Battelle will assist NIOSH in the dose 


reconstruction program by, one, evaluating and 


analyzing radiological data and conditions at 


each of the 256 work sites listed in the 


contract; two, developing Technical Basis 


Documents exposure models for the work sites 


where adequate radiological and work site 


information exists; and three, completing the 


dose reconstructions for claims from the work 


sites where a Technical Basis Document has been 


developed. Through their evaluation and 


analysis Battelle will also assist NIOSH in 


identifying work sites where there is 


insufficient information on radiological and 


work site condition -- end of quote. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

373 

SINW, our group, first requested to deal 


directly with Battelle since GSI and Dow 


Madison site were included as task order 16 


work sites. OCAS denied us permission and has 


actually refused since then to provide the name 


of the Battelle project leader even today. 


 Finally, after requesting, we were given Dave 


Allen's undated, two-page progress report on 


the Battelle contract. This document contained 


no site-specific data on the two Illinois 


sites. It did list 37 priority sites, one of 


which was Dow Madison. How this designation 


was derived or what it meant were not stated. 


 OCAS informed us that no Battelle site-specific 


data was available for either Dow or GSI, but 


confirmed that zero dose reconstructions had 


been done on these same two Illinois sites. A 


TBD that covered GSI was said to be in 


preparation, but we have not yet seen it. 


 Many contract milestones were acknowledged as 


being missed, and progress as made on far less 


than half the stated goals of the contract. 


Nor has Dave Allen's progress report yet been 


posted on the OCAS web site along with the 


other Battelle TO 16 documents. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

374

 SINW questions whether the two-page brief and 


undated report we were given is actually the 


full report provided to NIOSH. None of the 


subdocuments mentioned in Mr. Allen's report as 


being ready by November have been provided to 


us, specifically TBD 6000 and TBD 6001, 


Battelle TIB 5000 or the financial statements, 


to be more specific. 


We then -- then learned that NIOSH had granted 


Battelle a no-cost seven-month extension to 


task order 16 to run through May 31st, 2007. A 


three-page document supporting this has been 


posted on the OCAS web site. Why, we ask, was 


such remarkable under-performance on a federal 


contract rewarded with a seven-month extension? 


The initial one-year contract period for TO 16 


was exceeded without adequate justification, 


and we wonder why. 


Next, and last, I want to briefly review for 


you, in summary, of a lot of information we 


presented, why we think GSI should get an 


immediate SEC 83.14 for the following reasons. 


 NIOSH acknowledges it has no dosimetry data of 


any kind. 


NIOSH acknowledges there is no comparable site 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

375 

to GSI. 


NIOSH acknowledges that TIB-004 on uranium 


metal is not adequate for dose reconstruction 


for the reasons that John Ramspott just 


outlined. There are multiple other sources 


than uranium metal. 


 NIOSH acknowledges two 25-MeV Betatron magnetic 


conduction particle accelerator X-ray sources 


were used to X-ray Mallinckrodt uranium ingots 


from 1952 to 1966. The Ramspotts and SINW have 


provided NIOSH, through OCAS, with voluminous 


GSI site documentation indicating why and how 


GSI workers were harmed. There was no 


effective radiation safety program and workers 


were badly misled about risk. The 


documentation we've provided includes a 400­

page workbook on GSI; a detailed 13-page CATI 


transcript; video footage and court reporter-


generated transcripts and PowerPoints presented 


at worker meetings; plus four peer-reviewed 


scientific articles and a book chapter on 


Betatron activation and a NIOSH grant 


application all from Professor Vincent 


Kutemperer which he submitted in 1976. The 


grant was to study how the activation products 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

376 

might harm the workforce who handled Betatron-


activated industrial materials, and Dr. 


Kutemperer was one of the first people -- or 


Mr. Kutemperer at that time -- was one of the 


first people to ever point out the -- the human 


health dangers of industrial X-ray with this 


type of device. 


 And finally, Battelle has performed no GSI dose 


reconstructions in 14 months, as outlined in 


the previous section. 


The criteria for a Section 83.14 SEC have been 


amply fulfilled at GSI. NIOSH claims it can 


reconstruct the uranium-associated doses. Yet 


it is obvious that ORAU or Battelle have not 


and cannot do so, and NIOSH has provided us no 


evidence that it can do so. I outlined 


yesterday that we've only had four dose 


reconstructions out of the hundreds of claims 


submitted to General Steel, and we now believe 


that those four dose reconstructions were not 


really for GSI people. 


NIOSH appears to be unwilling to add the 


radiation doses incurred by activation 


radiation from the castings and add those to 


additional doses from the other GSI radiation 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

377 

source terms that include two cobalt-60 gamma 


sources and a radium-192 gamma source and a 250 


KVP portable X-ray device. 


NIOSH has failed to meet the timeliness or the 


dose reconstruction accuracy test for an SEC, 


and the workers have been harmed. 


We therefore urge NIOSH to admit the obvious 


and proceed to immediately recommend GSI for a 


SEC 83-14-derived class that includes the 


residual uranium contamination period from 1966 


through 1994 when DOE performed a cleanup of 


the residual uranium dust in the old Betatron 


buildings. The workers at GSI who are sick and 


dying deserve no less. 


And after the Board meeting, if I may, we will 


submit further detailed documentation why we 


believe this post-uranium work periods at both 


Dow and GSI should be covered under SECs. 


And again I thank the Board for hearing -- 


hearing us and giving us a forum to speak about 


this. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Dr. McKeel. 


Now we -- we'll also hear from Louise McKeel. 


Louise? 


 MS. MCKEEL: A lot of people know that I'm Mrs. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

378 

Dr. McKeel, but I'm also Louise McKeel and I 


guess I'm just going to read the comment and 


give it to you so that it stays as clear as 


possible. 


As a taxpayer and a interested citizen, my 


comment reflects a broad concern that costs of 


prolonged dose reconstruction, combined with 


other procedural delays and administrative 


costs, could nearly match or conceivably 


surpass the initial claimants' aggregate appeal 


for compensation. 


So then -- we're addressing Dr. Ziemer and 


other Board members, but particularly Dr. 


Ziemer because I believe I had a request and 


you responded a little bit to me that it 


wouldn't be too difficult, and so I want to be 


sure to have your attention on this. 


Well, I'll say again, I'm Louise McKeel of St. 


Louis, Missouri. I represent Village Image 


News, which is an environmental news agency -- 


an independent news organization, also. In 


August 2005 and again in June 2006 I addressed 


the Board in two letters that asked for overall 


cost figures for EEOICPA. The verbal response 


was, one, the information was in the public 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

379 

domain and straightforward to obtain; and two, 


Stu Hinnefeld from NIOSH would help the Board 


to gather the program cost information for me. 


Dr. Lewis Wade was going to find my original 


letter and provide a copy to Dr. Ziemer and the 


Board. So far no cost information has ever 


materialized. 


 In the meantime, the testimony from the fourth 


and fifth rounds of the Hostettler House 


Judiciary Subcommittee have emerged. It has 


now become clear -- to Dan and me, at least, 


and others, I think -- that members of the 


administration, including OMB, the Department 


of Labor, are actively attempting to reduce 


benefits paid under the SECs and to other 


EEOICPA claimants, even though Shelby Hallmark 


denied this in his December 5th testimony on a 


downloaded webcast that we received. 


 Mr. Hallmark apparently fears that the -- a 


flood of SEC awards will need to be considered 


in numbers that could possibly swamp the budget 


process, now estimated to run as high as $7 


billion. My questions to the Board tonight are 


the following: A, will you please provide me 


with the total costs to date for all components 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

380 

of EEOICPA from 2000 to the present, including 


the Board, NIOSH, SC&A audit activities, ORAU, 


Battelle, DOE and -- and Department of Labor; 


B, I'm relying on NIOSH and Department of Labor 


data and the unpublished probable SEC-eligible 


site list from the ORAU $55 million contract 


and the $1.5 million Battelle task order 16 


contracts, will the Board please project for me 


the aggregate cost of all awarded and prob-- 


probable SEC claims and non-SEC claims that 


will potentially be compensated in the future; 


and C, if A and B are not possible, will the 


Board request through Congress that the 


Government Accountability Office immediately 


undertake a study to obtain and disseminate 


these cost figures to the public. 


As a citizen and a taxpayer, I remain both 


surprised and alarmed to keep watching the 


initial visible intent of Congress to 


compensate certain harmed nuclear workers who 


vigorously and ingenuously thwarted by multiple 


agencies of our United States government, 


including presumably the Office of the 


President. One could make an extensive 


taxonomy of the ways that have been developed 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

381 

to delay and deny worker claims. Meanwhile, 


workers are dying. Many have already died 


while waiting for payments of their claims. My 


husband Dan and numerous others have 


demonstrated to me the tedious and time-


consuming SEC petition process that routinely 


results in more and more wasted time and money 


on every side. 


I sincerely hope my third request to the Board 


for some comprehensive EEOICPA cost figures 


will not be ignored. If the costs are 


completely unknown and inestimable, I honestly 


expect a reply stating that condition, simply 


because I'm a taxpayer and an increasingly-


interested citizen. 


I wrote that before I got here, and I had a 


thought after I got here that I just add on. 


As an added comment I want to point to the rich 


irony that emerged this morning during the 


Board's discussion about four Board members' 


problems with income tax withholding, 


particularly related to the State of Georgia. 


Visually, the scene practically mirrored the 


same kinds of frustration and indignation that 


I am used to videotaping when nuclear workers 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

382 

testify. To hear Robert Presley say -- to con­

- to hear Robert Presley conclude, in self-


righteous anger, there's something wrong, helps 


me to illustrate the way I feel about the 


entire accounting process into which I am 


inquiring through -- through NIOSH. 


The suggested remedy for the Board involves the 


responsible agencies contacting every member of 


the Board to guide each through the time and 


energy-consuming bureaucratic tracks that 


appear similar, but presumably less cumbersome, 


than the so-called tracks that NIOSH and others 


are currently developing for the nuclear 


workers they are supposed to be serving. A lot 


of time could be saved by plainly recognizing 


that the federal government and industry and 


other agencies, such as the Atomic Energy 


Commission, did not do an adequate job of 


monitoring workers at numerous sites in the 


past. And all workers who worked in 


unmonitored, or merely partially monitored, 


environments need to be compensated on good 


faith, much the same way Mr. Presley will 


probably have his tax debts adjusted. But as a 


significant monument to the future, such a -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

383 

such a payoff action must lead to comprehensive 


steps and tracks that are vigorously developed 


and rapidly implemented to inform not only 


workers and their families, but the population 


at large, of the consequences and dangers of 


managing and experimenting with a wide range of 


nuclear materials, whether for industrial, 


educational or governmental uses. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Louise. Please 


let me ask you a couple of questions. Number 


one, we -- we had provided to us today the -- 


that part of the cost of the program which is 


the biggest part and that is the payments to 


claimants. You're aware of that information. 


 MS. MCKEEL: Yes, and I could add -- and I 


should add, that was after I wrote the last 


part of that. And I was gratified. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MS. MCKEEL: To me, that was the kind of 


information --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and -- and you -- 

 MS. MCKEEL: -- and some of that's been 

available. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and that includes both the 

Labor part and the -- and the NIOSH part, both 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

384 

parts of the EEOICPA program, in terms of 


claimant compensation and -- so -- so that's -- 


that was the first --


 MS. MCKEEL: (Unintelligible) --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- I wanted to make sure --

 MS. MCKEEL: -- parts of it. It's -- it's 

still parts of it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now if -- if you're asking what 


the --


 MS. MCKEEL: Basically (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- projection is, I hope you don't 


ask the Board to project that. I don't think 


we have a way of projecting that. Maybe --


maybe Labor or NIOSH knows what the pool is out 


there, or one might be able to look at what's 


happened and -- and sort of plot that. But in 


any event, that piece of the information I 


assume you now have available. That is what -- 


 MS. MCKEEL: True. I must say that I haven't 


processed it as much as I want to now that -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, but --


 MS. MCKEEL: -- it's been (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- the figures are there. I think 


the complete figures were provided to us today 


on the compensation --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

385

 MS. MCKEEL: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- that has been given to 


claimants. Now the other parts of the things 


you were asking were the costs of, for example, 


this Board, and our -- I think those are 


numbers that are -- have been made public in 


this forum in -- in the last few meetings and 


perhaps you didn't get them, but Lew can tell 


you what our budget is to operate this 


committee, and also the -- the budget for our 


contractor has been made public within the last 


few meetings. So those two pieces of 


information we can give you, if not like this 


within the day -- I know what those are -- 


 MS. MCKEEL: And then if we could get 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and I don't think I can commit 


to giving anything for Labor. I'm not sure 


NIOSH can commit Labor to providing numbers, 


but that's public information. I think you'd 


have to go after that with the Labor people. 


NIOSH budget is a public thing now. I don't 


know how hard it is to get that, but those -- 


 MS. MCKEEL: Well, I've been hearing some -- 


and of course I tape every little word -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

386

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MS. MCKEEL: -- but I don't always hear kind of 


the bottom line. I hear rates and things -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: But what I'm telling you is that I 


think the numbers are there. I -- I want to 


make sure that you can get the information you 


need. We are certainly not trying to keep it 


from you and I think -- but I don't know how 


readily it -- I don't have -- I don't know what 


ORAU's budget is. I mean I've -- I've seen 


some numbers, and again, it's public 


information. Battelle contract is public 

information. So I think those numbers are 

there and --

 MS. MCKEEL: I guess I --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- and perhaps --

 MS. MCKEEL: -- I had hoped --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- perhaps off-line --

 MS. MCKEEL: -- (unintelligible) assembling -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- we can guide you to the right 

resources, but at least for the NIOSH and OCAS 


part of this, and certainly the Board stuff -- 


I mean our -- our budget is -- is well-known. 


And I -- I might tell you that -- I said to 


some of the Board members after our meeting 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

387 

earlier today where we expressed -- expressed 


our frustrations, now we know what the 


claimants feel like when they're dealing with 


the federal government. This is 


(unintelligible) --


 MS. MCKEEL: I felt this was a plus. I really 


felt on Mr. Presley's side for a while there, 


you know. It's a -- it's a problem. But 


maybe you can understand that little bit how 


people in need and who are sick must feel when 


they're not getting what they need. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Understood. Okay. 


 MS. MCKEEL: But I think the exercise -- let me 


just conclude my little thought -- was as we 


pull those total numbers together, the exercise 


was a way for us all really to figure out what 


the proportions are here. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and I think you -- you may 


or may not be surprised, but I -- I know that 


sometimes there's a perception that the costs 


of administering this program are as great or 


greater than the costs of compensation, and 


they are nowhere close to that. The 


compensation is -- that has already been paid 


dwarfs anything that it has taken to administer 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

388 

this program. But nonetheless, the figures are 


-- you know, are out there and let's -- we'll 


try to make sure that you get them. But I -- I 


don't think that --


 MS. MCKEEL: I'll leave it with you there. 


There was things about -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm reluctant to commit the Board 


to spending time to do that as a Board task 


when -- when the information is there. I mean 


I -- I sort of feel like, in a sense, maybe 


it's your responsibility to track it down 


'cause it's there. But let us try to help you 


get it. 


 MS. MCKEEL: I'm going to say that in running 


my family, which I'm always interested in the 


finances of the family -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MS. MCKEEL: -- I think the heads of the 


family, both parents or in older children, need 


to know how much everything costs. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Robert 


Stephan from Senator Obama's office -- is 


Robert still with us? 


 DR. WADE: He's coming. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Would you like to read an 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

389 

additional statement or have some additional 


comments, we'd be pleased to hear from you. 


 MR. STEPHAN: You guys have been here a long 


time. Do I need to read it, or can I just 


submit it? 


 DR. ZIEMER: You can submit it, that's fine. 


 MR. STEPHAN: This is a written statement from 


Congressman Costello, who could not be here 


today. He asked Senator Obama to submit this, 


but while the reporters were chasing me around 


the back of the hotel, it got dropped in a 


puddle, so I've been letting it dry out -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: The dog ate the point, right. 


 MR. STEPHAN: -- so who do I give it to? 


Again, just for the record -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Give it to Lew. 


 MR. STEPHAN: -- the-- these are comments from 


Congressman Costello about Dow Chemical and 


General Steel Industries, which are both in his 


district. Okay? Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So we can enter those into 


the record and make copies available to the 


Board, as well. 


 DR. WADE: Right. I think we -- maybe we'll 


start the day tomorrow reading it into the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 -- 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

390 

record. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: I think we'll read it into the 


record, but we'll do it in the morning. 


 MR. STEPHAN: Okay, yeah. I mean we -- we want 


it in the official transcript. 


 DR. WADE: Right, we'll do that. 


 MR. STEPHAN: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: If you would give it to Jason, maybe 


 MR. STEPHAN: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: -- Jason, you could read it into the 


record in the morning. 


 MR. STEPHAN: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We'll do that. Now I have gone 


through every name on the list that I have. 


Was there anyone that believes that they signed 


up to speak that was omitted? Okay. I called 


a couple of names and no one responded, but we 


were having trouble reading them, so please 


come at this time. Maybe one -- is -- one of ­

- one of the names is Joshua. 


 DR. WADE: He'll identify himself. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. The others looked like 


Charles, but... 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

391

 MR. POLO: I'm Joe Polo* from the GSI -- ex-GSI 


group and I -- there was a lot brought here, 


and I wanted to bring out a little bit on what 


was on our training and so forth, and safety 


education. I've been a lab technician all my 


life -- most -- most of my life, and so I left 


the petroleum chemical industry and went to 


work for GSI November 1969 and worked through 


December 1972. First few days I was put in the 


metallurgical lab, and then they says we got a 


new nuclear setup here we want you to take 


advantage of, which was fine -- agreeable to 


me. I was willing to learn. 


So then they put me first into the magnetic 


particle testing, magnaflux, and die penetrant 


of the tank hulls. That's how you started out. 


Then transferred into the Betatron X-ray lab 


and send you to atomic energy specification 


school for two weeks per the federal AEC 


register, and we learned radiation safety. And 


one month later they send me to Kodak at 


Rochester, New York because they were having 


pro-- a backlog and the -- couldn't -- the 


people at the time couldn't handle the -- what 


they call Xomats, so they send me to Rochester 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

392 

to learn -- to film processor school, film and 


processing and everything about it, which I 


did. I spent two weeks there. And then I 


worked as a Betatron operator and film 


processor and film interpreter for several -- 


for a few years there. 


Then I took classes on the use of isotopes, 


namely cobalt-60 -- 80-curie, you heard -- and 


we had a -- occasionally we leased a 100-curie. 


And then also 150-curie radium-152 and we X-


rayed with the isotopes. 80-curie was used for 


X-ray for base of nuclear channel heads, pipes, 


flanges, seam generator components, rapid 


transit underframes and the Trident submarine. 


And like I said, majorly on the nuclear channel 


heads. Okay. And we -- with the Betatron we 


majorly X-rayed castings, tank hulls, steam-


generating plants, Trident submarine parts, 


components and pipes and flanges and radium 


ingots and billets. Then of course the 


(unintelligible) axle housing like my 


colleague, George Luber, explained to you, and 


railroad cars and undercarriages. And the 


Betatron was, like he explained, 25 million 


energy volts, one of the bigger babies at that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

393 

time. 


And in late 1969 we were using 80-curie cobalt60 and the pill, which is the source, became 


hung up in the shooting position and did not 


retract into the pig* or container. And we 


walked out into the shooting room and noticed 


the big Victoreen survey meter pegged* and we 


returned to the operation room -- you know, the 


room we cranked the source in and out from. It 


was on a long cable. And we tried to calibrate 


and reset the Victoreen survey meter. However, 


to this day, I don't think -- there was also -- 


already radiation coming into the operation 


room once we opened the door, so I don't think 


we had a good reading on it. After cranking it 


in -- in and out a few times, the pill finally 


released and went back into the big container. 


I reported the incident and went to the 


dispensary. They send me home to our local 


hospital, and fortunately our local hospital 


was a advantage. We had some young doctors and 


well-- with a lot of experience and highly 


intelligent. It was -- yes, I was sent to the 


family doctors, who took blood tests and they 


says we don't know a whole lot about this. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

394 

They called St. Louis, they called Chicago, 


North Shore, and so they gave me some 


antibiotics and send me home. The next day I 


went to work, the management put me into film 


interpretation, you know, film reading until 


the field badge reports came back. 


 Approximately nine years later I came down with 


lymphoma type cancer of the pancreas and liver, 


and I took chemotherapy, what they call chop*, 


for -- oh, eight times, six months, two and a 


half, three hours at a time at Siteman* Cancer 


Center, Washington University, Barnes Hospital 


and -- and I also cropped up with skin -- what 


they called pre-cancer. Nobody knew a whole 


lot about -- there weren't too many 


dermatologists up on that stuff, either, so at 


the present time I get treated at John Cochran 


PA. They've got some good ones because they 


are treating people that are coming back from 


Iraq and it's also in St. Louis. I sub-- I 


recently submitted all the paper forms and 


doctors' reports and -- in -- with Department 


of Labor in Paducah and NIOSH in Cincinnati. 


had a telephone interview and after -- and any 


other government office that would request it. 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

395 

We can -- it's available. Now we are waiting. 


 General Steel Industries, although we had film 


badges, dosimeters and Victoreen survey meters, 


Geiger counters, we did not receive any reports 


on anything that transpired, to the best of my 


knowledge. And I think that was where the big 


failure was. So the other colleagues of mine 


informed you of the other important things that 


was needed, and this is more or less on our 


training and so forth. So I thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. And then the 


other gentlemen, also from I believe the same 


facility. 


MR. IVORY: Good evening. I came here today -- 


John asked me to come today -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Give us your name, please -- 


MR. IVORY: Samuel Ivory. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Samuel, uh-huh. 


MR. IVORY: John asked me to come today and 


speak in behalf of the people outside of 


Betatron, and I'd like to say everything that 


they said about Betatron was true. And working 


at General Steel, I was a chainer. Every 


casting that they handled, we handled 'cause we 


had to take it in and out. And that went on 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

396 

from year after year. We had castings 


sometimes stayed in -- in the plant over a year 


till they finished them, and we handled those 


plants -- those castings. 


Also, in 10 building in the machine shop where 


they machined these materi-- these castings, 


they cut off the -- they cut off the steel and 


it went back to -- to the foundry. And what 


I'm saying here, everyone basically was exposed 


to some of this material. If you were the 


chainer, chipper, grinder, laborer, whatever 


your capacity was, you was compo-- you was 


exposed to this material. And just saying that 


if you wasn't in Betatron, you wasn't exposed ­

- when it came out of Betatron, it wasn't 


clean. Where did it go? And being the 


chainer, we had to lay down on it, crawl up on 


it to hook it up. And when you got -- took 


your clothes home to wash them and you look in 


the washing machine, it was dirty, filthy. Did 

you expose your family to it? 

No one ever told us that it was dangerous. No 

one ever told us anything. And I come here 

today pleading with you to find out what the 


problem was. You know, why would you, in this 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

397 

modern day, put workers at risk and wouldn't 


tell them? 


And I'd like to thank the panel today for 


letting me have this opportunity. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. That 


completes our list. Are there any others that 


didn't get an opportunity to sign up that wish 


to speak? 


 (No responses) 


If not, I thank all of you for joining us 


tonight and for your remarks, which we are 


pleased to have in the record and in many cases 


will be able to follow up on. You're all 


welcome to be with us tomorrow. The Board will 


resume its regular deliberations at 8:30 


tomorrow morning, and we're recessed until 


then. 


 (Whereupon, the meeting concluded at 9:11 p.m.) 

______________________________ 

398 

1 

2 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 


STATE OF GEORGIA 


COUNTY OF FULTON 


 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 


Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 


above and foregoing on the day of Dec. 12, 


2006; and it is a true and accurate transcript 


of the testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


18th day of February, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102